^ 



E 457 
.n66 
Copy 1 





Class __1AH 
Book ' 



GopyrigtitlN^ 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSm 



FHE REAL LINCOLN, 

BY 

CHARLES L. C MINOR, 



WITH ARTICLE 
BY 

LYdN a TYLpR 



EDITED BY 



KATE MASON ROWLAND, 

\uthor of "Life of George Mason," "Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton," etc 



RICHMOND, VA.: 

EVERETT WADDEY COMPANY. 
1901. 



THE REAL LINCOLN, 

BY 

CHARLES L, C, MINOR, 



WITH ARTICLE 
BY 

LYON a TYLER, 



EDITED BY 



KATE MASON ROWLAND, 

Author of " Life of George Mason," " Life of Charles Carroll of CarroUton," etc. 



RICHMOND, VA.: 

EVERETT WADDEY COMPANY. 
1901. 






THE LrSRARY OF 
CONGRESS, 

Two Copies Received 

MAY. 13 1901 

COPYBIOHT ENTRY 

CLASS ^XXc. No 
COP^^ 



COPYRIGHTED, 1901, 
BY CHARLES L. C. MINOR. 



PRKKACB. 



BY THE EDITOR. 

" Whosoever in writing a modern history, shall follow 
truth too near the heels, it may haply strike out his teeth. 
There is no mistress or guide that hath led her followers and 
servants into greater miseries. He that goes after her too 
far, loseth her sight, and loseth himself; and he that walks 
after her at a middle distance, I know not whether I should 
call that kind of course temper or Ijaseness." 

" No man can long continue masked in a counterfeit 
behavior: the things that are forced for pretences, having no 
ground of truth, cannot long dissemble their own natures." — 
Sir Walter Raleigh. 

The Genius of History will surely vindicate her right to 
truth, though a whole people conspire against her. So the 
man behind the mask, whether it be placed there by himself 
or others, must at length come forth in his own true character. 
" We have seen," as has been well said, " the ' Lincoln legend ' 
in actual process of evolution, and cannot again be surprised 
at the historical myths that have come down to us from more 
uncritical ages." But legend and myth must give way before 
conscientious investigation, an investigation which brings out 
suppressed facts and points an unerring finger at fallacies and 
fabrications. 

While the private character of Lincoln has been made by 
his eulogists to appear the thing it was not, his public career 
has been described by them as meriting unqualified approbation. 
It is of the latter alone I would speak here. What was he 
then? — the " liberator" who set free slaves that did not belong 
to him in order to injure a people over whom he had no sort of 



The Real Lincoln. 



jurisdiction; the " saviour of the Union" who called armies 
into action to force a confederacy of States back into a federa- 
tion they had abjured? He was in truth the Constitution- 
breaker, the violator of solemn political obligations, and the 
prime agent in a gigantic act of robbery and confiscation. To 
justify themselves, the Northern people glorify Lincoln, set a 
nimbus about his head, crown him with bays as their pro- 
tagonist in the drama by which the great crime of the century 
was consummated — the suppression of Southern independence. 
With unconscious irony Lincoln is compared by these illogical 
idolaters with Washington. To liken the oppressor of whole 
communities to the arch "rebel" who achieved the independ- 
ence of these communities is surely the veriest climax of incon- 
sequentness. Washington led thirteen colonies to independ- 
ence; Lincoln deprived thirteen States of the rights secured 
to them by the arms of Washington. The one fought for 
the principle that governments derive their just powers from 
the consent of the governed; the other upheld the doctrine 
that governments should rest on force and not on consent. 
Lincoln's true peer and prototype is found in George III. In the 
eighteenth century it was Washington who represented the 
rights of communities in a so-called " indissoluble" empire; 
in the nineteenth century it was Lincoln who opposed this 
principle and maintained the supremacy of a so-called " indis- 
soluble " federal republic. Jefferson Davis exemplified the 
creed of Thomas Jefferson in opposition to the George III. 
and Lincoln dogma — the creed that a community (and if a 
colony, much more certainly a State), has a reserved sovereign 
power in its " people," giving them a right to ordain and alter 
their own form of government, whether these communities 
are in an empire under a king or in a "union" of States under 
a president. 

" When, in 1861," says a distinguished Virginia writer, 
" moved by her sovereign pleasure, but acting in accordance 
with her old principles and traditions, she [Virginia] threw 
off a grievous Federal yoke, she found an American President, 
whose power was but the rank and unhealthy growth of those 
principles, as prompt to stifle them with force as King George 
had been, who denied the school of politics out of which they 



Preface. 5 

sprang, nor in petition, nor remonstrance, had ever heard of 
these extravagant pretensions of his American subjects. Mr. 
Lincoln, by his armed powers, produced far greater results 
than the loss of independence by the Southern States, for he 
destroyed the head-spring from which had been derived the 
right, which the majority claimed to govern the State. It is 
evident the only authority for that theorem of politics was 
the assertions of those charters of popular rights which the 
late General Grant overthrew with his myrmidons. If at this 
day, the majority governs anywhere, within the extended 
limits of political society, it is by the reverence which men 
pay to positive law. The moral ground has been broken up 
and swept away. The party of 'moral ideas,' as the Republican 
party arrogantly and insolently call themselves, has remitted 
society, in every land, to the government of force, and we 
stand now in this advanced era where Caesar and Genseric 
stood. From that time [the date of the war -upon the Con- 
federate States] the Republic of the United States, regarded 
as a model for imitation, ceased, by its own act, to be a 
government of consent, as in two famous Charters and in the 
Constitution which created it, it had been with exultation 
proclaimed to be, and under the control of Abraham Lincoln 
and the Republican party, became a government of force, 
according to the American classification, as much as the 
sternest military monarchy in king-governed Asia."* 

Facilis deoensus Averni. Secretary Root justifies the latest 
American war of subjugation by the precedent of 1861. 
" Nothing can be more mischievous," he tells us, " than a prin- 
ciple misapplied. The doctrine that government derives its 
just powers from the consent of the governed was applicable 
to the conditions for which Jefferson wrote it and to the people 
to whom he applied it. * * * Lincoln did not apply it to 
the South, and the great struggle of the Civil War was a 
solemn assertion by the American people that there are other 
principles of law and liberty [?] which limit the application 
of the doctrine of consent. Government does not depend upon 



*" The Republic as a Form of Government; or, The Evolution of Democ- 
racy in America," pp. 11, 12, 7,S, by .John Scott (of Fauquier), London, Chap- 
man and Hall, 1890. 



The Real Lincoln. 



consent." * The Northern Democrat to-day differs only from 
the Republican in being more shamelessly inconsistent. It will 
be seen that this party opposed in 1861 the coercion of the 
Southern Confederacy, and was dragged into the war by Lin- 
coln. But who among them now raises his voice to confess 
the wrong of which the United States were then guilty? In 
the late presidential campaign, William Jennings Bryan, who, 
if elected, would have owed his elevation to the vote of the 
" Solid South," equally with Mr. Root, declared the " doctrine 
of consent" totally inapplicable to the sovereign States of the 
late Confederacy. " Republicans tell us," he says, " that the 
Philippine war is the same as was the War between the States. 
A man does not need to have much intelligence to see the 
difference between the principles involved. In the Civil War 
the North was holding the people of the South in the Union, 
but the people were not to be subjects; they were to be 
citizens. They were not held in the Union to be denied the 
privileges of citizenship." Neither did George III. intend to 
deprive the people of the American colonies of the privileges 
of British citizens! But here is Mr. Bryan's conclusion, in 
pleading for the Filipinos: " There are but -two theories of 
government. One is that governments come up from the 
people. The other is that governments rest upon force. If this 
nation rejects the idea that governments derive their just 
powers from the consent of the governed, then civilization 
starts backward toward the Dark Ages." -f- 

Is it not, then, v/ithin the bounds of truth to say that the 
man who first " rejected " this idea, the man who first spurned 
and trampled under foot the principles of '76, leading to the 
conditions of 1865 and 1901, was even more the enemy of 
America and of liberty than George III. and Lord North? 



*Speech of Elihu Root, Secretary of War, Canton, Ohio, October 24.1900. 
Mr. March, of Illinois, in a debate in the House of Representatives. January 26, 
1899, said " he was in favor of annexation of the Philippines whether the 
natives were willing; or not. For four years we had fought in tliis country 
to force the Southern people to submit to the Constitution against their 
will. It was absurd to say that we could not employ force to talfe and liold 
the Philippines." So Puck, in a cartoon of the 25th of January, inscribes on 
the wall of '• Uncle Sam's " schoolhouse: " The Confederate States refused 
their consent to be governed; but the Union was preserved without their 
consent." 

+ Speech of Hon. Wm. J. Bryan, Shepherdstown, W. Va., September 5, 1900. 



The Real Lincoln, 



INTRODUCTION * * 

A mistaken estimate of Abraliam Lincoln has been spread 
abroad very widely, and even in the South an editorial in a 
very respectable religious paper lately said as follows: " Our 
country has more than once been singularly fortunate in the 
moral character and the admirable personality of its popular 
heroes. Washington, Lincoln and Lee have been the type 
of character that it was safe to hold up to the admiration 
of their own age and the imitation of succeeding generations." 
In the North the psean of praise that began with his death has 
grown to such extravagance that he has been called by one 
eminent popular speaker "a servant and follower of Jesus 
Christ," and by another "first of all that have walked the 
earth after the Nazarene," and on his late birthday a eulogist 
asked us to give up aspirations for a heaven where Lincoln's 
presence is not assured. 

To try to reawaken or to foster ill will between the North 
and the South would be a useless, mischievous and most cen- 
surable task, and it will be seen that this sketch has an 
exactly opposite purpose, but it is a duty to correct such 
misrepresentations, for the reason that they make claims for 
Lincoln entirely inconsistent with the concessions of grave 
defects in him that are made by the closest associates of his 
private life, and by his most respectable and most eulogistic 
biographers, and equally inconsistent with the estimates of 
him expressed by the greatest and closest associates of his 

*A part of the historical material used in this sketch has been used before 
in letters over the author's name in daily papers, as follows: In the Rich- 
mond (Va.) Times, of December .31st, 1898: of September 3d, 1899. and of May 
11th, 1900; in the Baltimore Sun, of April 3d, 1899, of August 25th, 1900, of 
October 12th, 1900, and of March 4th, 1901 ; in the Richmond (Va.) Dispatch, 
January 14th, 1900, and of March 13th, 1900. The last two appeared in the 
Southern Historical Society Papers, Vol. XXVII., as Articles XXI. and 
XLIII., pp. 165, 365. 



The Real Lincoln. 



public life, and by a very large part of the great Northern 
and Western Republican leaders of his own day. This sketch 
is based on the testimony of such witnesses only. 

In the Appendix will be found, in alphabetical order, the 
names of all the witnesses whose evidence is submitted in this 
sketch. Referfence is invited to that Appendix, as each witness 
is reached by the reader, and it will be found that each is 
included in one of the above indicated classes. Only old 
and exceptionally well-informed men of this day are likely 
to know the ample authority with which these witnesses speak. 
See Horace Greeley, whose lofty integrity extorted admiration 
from thousands on whose nearest and dearest interests his 
Tribune newspaper waged a war as deadly as it was honest; 
see Lincoln's greatest Cabinet Ministers — Seward, Chase and 
Stanton; see two among the foremost leaders of thought 
and action of their day, John Sherman and Ben Wade; see 
representatives of the highest standards, intellectual and 
moral, Richard Dana and Edward Everett; see the most ardent 
and prominent of Abolitionists, Wendell Phillips; and see 
the correspondent of the London Times, Russell; see the most 
up-to-date historians of our own day, Ida Tarbell, A. K. 
McClure, Schouler, Ropes and Rhodes; and see the most inti- 
mate associates of Lincoln's lifetime, Lamon and Herndon, 
who give such reasons for telling not the good only, but all 
they know about their great friend, as win commendation from 
the latest biographers of all, Morse and Hapgood, whose books 
have received only praise from the American reading public. 

Was Lincoln Heroic ? 

Among the heroic traits claimed for Lincoln is personal 
courage. This claim is hard to reconcile with his carefully- 
concealed midnight ride into Washington a day or two before 
his inauguration. McClure and others have been at no small 
pains to apologize for it, but Greeley likened him* to "a 
hunted fugitive," and Lamon, the intimate friend of his life- 
time, who was selected by himself as the one heavily armed 
companion of the midnight journey, expressly declares that 

* American Conflict, Vol. I., p. 421. 



Was Lincoln Heroic f 9 



the apprehensions of violence were without the slightest 
foundation then or on the inauguration day, described below. 
Nicolay and Hay devote a chapter (XX. of Vol. III.) to it, but 
do not claim that there was any danger. Morse, as jealous to 
defend Lincoln as any other, concedes there was no danger, 
and that " Lamon's account of it * * * is doubtless the 
most trustworthy." 

Ida Tarbell describes Lincoln's progress through the city to 
his Inaugural ceremony — the strong military force, including 
artillery, assembled to protect him under command of General 
Winfield Scott — " platoons of soldiers" at the street corners, 
" groups of riflemen on the housetops," and shows how he 
passed through a board tunnel into the Capitol building " with 
fifty or sixty soldiers under the platform." The titory of the 
journey and of the Inauguration makes quite comprehensible 
what Lamon and Vice-President Hamlin record, that Lincoln 
was bitterly ashamed ever afterward of what he had done in 
this matter.* 

When Baltimore had stopped the Massachusetts soldiers 
and Maryland had stopped all soldiers going to Washington, 
so that the capital seemed to be left at the mercy of the South, 
Ida Tarbell, Nicolay and Hay, Schouler and Rhodes, give singu- 
lar accounts of Lincoln's state of apprehension. Rhodes and 
Tarbell quote his words: "Why don't they come? Why don't 
they come? I begin to believe there is no North. The Seventh 
Regiment is a myth." * * * * -j- 

Russell wrote to the London Tiiiirs (My Diary, North and 
South, page 43) that when Washington city was in panic after 

* McClare's Our Presidents and his Lincolni.p.46 etseq.); Lamon's Lincoln {p. 
16 et seq., SS-et seq., 513 et seq.) ; Ida Tarbell, in McClure's Magazine for January 
and February, 1900; Greeley's American Conflict (Vol. I., p. 421 et seq,) ; Morse's 
Lincoln (p. 197 etseq); Hamlin's Life of Hamlin (p. 389), and Rhodes' Hifrtory 
of the United States (Vol. III., p. 304). The Hon. Henry L. Dawes says, in 
Tribiitcs from, his A.isociates (p. 4) : " He never altogether lost to me the look 
with which he met the curious and, for the moment, not very kind gaze of 
the House of Representatives on that first morning after what they deemed 
a pusillaminous creep into Washington." 

ilda Tarbell. in McClure's Magazine for February, 1899 (p. 325); Rhodes" 
History of the United States (Vol. III., p. 368) ; Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. 
IV., p. 152 et seq.); Schouler's History of tlie United States (Vol. VI., p. 45). 



10 The Real Lincoln. 



the defeat at Bull Run* Lincoln "sat listening in fear and 
trembling for the sound of the enemy's cannon." 

In the second great panic in Washington, when the Union 
army under General Pope was utterly routed and close on 
Washington in retreat, Gorham and Rhodes f describe Lincoln 
in such doubt and apprehension as to say to Chase and Stan- 
ton, of his Cabinet, that " he would gladly resign his place." 
General B. F. Butler censures the account of Lincoln's condi- 
tion given by Nicolay and Hay, as follows: "A careful reading 
of that description would lead one to infer that Lincoln was 
in a state of abject fear." 

The Life of Charles Francis Adams describes (page 120 ct seq.) 
Adams' visit to the new President to get his instructions as 
Minister to England. He got none whatever, was " half 
amused, half mortified, altogether shocked," and got an im- 
pression of "dismay" at Lincoln's behavior and his uncon- 
sciousness of " the gravity of the crisis," or his insensibility 
to it, and perceived that Lincoln was only " intent on the 
distribution of offices." The biographer, his son, says that this 
impression had not faded from the mind of Mr. Adams twelve 
years later, when he made a Memorial Address on the death 
of Seward, as indeed plainly appears in that address. 

Rhodes records contempt for Lincoln expressed by his 
Secretary, Salmon P. Chase, afterwards made by Lincoln Chief 
Justice of the Supreme Court, and says that Chase " was by no 
means alone in his judgment," and that " in many Senators 
and Representatives existed a distrust of his ability and force 
of character," and he further quotes so high an authority as 
Richard H. Dana, who said in one letter, when on a visit to 
Washington, " the lack of respect for the President in all 
parties is unconcealed," and wrote, in March, 1863, to Charles 
Francis Adams, Minister to England, that Lincoln " has no 
admirers * * * ^nd does not act, talk, or feel like the 
ruler of a great empire in a great crisis, * * * he is an 
unspeakable calamity to us where he is." J General Donn Piatt, 



* Russell's Ml/ Dianj 

+ Gorham's Life of Stanton (Vol. II., p. 44 et seq ); Rhodes' Histwy of the 
United States (Vol. IV , p. 137 et seq.) ; Butler's Book (p. 219). 

t Rhodes' History of the United States (Vol. IV., pp. 205 to 210 el seq. and a note 
on p. 210). 



Was Lincoln Heroic ? .11 



in Reminiscences of Lincoln (page 286) denies the claim made 
for Lincoln that he was of a kind or forgiving nature or of 
any gentle impulses, and shows (page 493) his extraordinary 
insensibility to the ills of his fellow-citizens and soldiers when 
the miseries of the war were at their worst, and sets forth 
(page 481 to 500) his entire indifference to the condition of the 
negroes or their future fate. Whitney, too, says " he had no 
intention to make voters of the negroes — in fact their welfare 
did not enter into his policy at all."* 

What Lincoln was capable of in his dealings with women 
is conclusively illustrated by his letter to Mrs. Browning about 
Miss Owens. Lamon copies it and so do Herndon and Hapgood. 
Nicolay and Hay concede its authenticity in trying to make 
light of it; Hapgood copies besides another letter in which 
Lincoln asks Miss Owens to marry him. Morse calls the letter 
to Mistress Browning " one of the most unfortunate epistles 
ever penned," and elsewhere calls it " that most abominable 
epistle."t Acknowledging that he had lately asked Miss Owens 
to marry him and had been refused by her, Lincoln writes to 
Mrs. Browning that one of his reasons for asking her to marry 
him was the conviction that no other man would ever do so. 
Lamon speaks (page 181) of " its coarse exaggeration in de- 
scribing a person whom the writer was willing to marry, its 
imputation of toothless and weather-beaten old age to a woman 
young and handsome." 

Evidence of the marriage of Lincoln's parents has been 
found since Lamon's Lincoln was published in 1872 (see page 
10), and like evidence of his mother's legitimate birth since 
Hapgood's Lincoln was published in 1900 (see page 5). But 
Lincoln himself was capable of bringing shame upon the birth 
of his mother to escape the reproach of being of the unmixed 
" poor white " blood of the Hanks family. Herndon's Lincoln 
(Vol. I., page 3) says: " It was about 1850, when he and I were 
driving in his one-horse buggy to the court in Minard county, 
Illinois. * * * He said of his mother * * * that she 
was the illegitimate daughter of Lucy Hanks and of a well- 

* On Circuit with Lincoln, p 364. 

fSee Lamon's Lincoln, -p. \^\ et seq.,&n6. Herndon's Lincoln, yo\. I., p. 55, 
and Hapgood's Lincoln, p. 64 to 71, and Nicolay & Hay's Lincoln. Vol. 1., p. 192 



12 The Real Lincoln. 



bred Virginia farmer or planter, and he argued that from this 
last source came his power of analysis, his mental activity, 
his ambition, and all the qualities that distinguished him from 
the other members of the Hanks family, * * * and he 
believed that his better nature and finer qualities came from 
this broad-minded, unknown Vifginian." 

Was Lincoln a Christian ? 

As to Lincoln's attitude towards religion, Holland in his 
Lincoln, says (page 286), that twenty out of the twenty-three 
ministers of the different denominations of Christians, and a 
very large majority of the prominent members of the churches 
in his home (Springfield, Illinois) opposed him for President. 
He says (page 241) : * * * " jyjgn ^jjq knew him through- 
out all his professional and political life," have said " that, 
so far from being a religious man, or a Christian, the less 
said about that the better." He says of Lincoln's first recorded 
religious utterance, used in closing his farewell address to 
Springfield, that it " was regarded by many as an evidence 
both of his weakness and of his hypocrisy * * * and was 
tossed about as a joke — ' old Abe's Last.' " 

Hapgood's Lincoln (page 291 et scq.) records that the pious 
words with which the Emancipation Proclamation closes were 
added at the suggestion of Secretary Chase, and so do Rhodes 
and Usher, and Rhodes shows him plainly an infidel if not an 
atheist.* Of his words that savor of religion, Lamon says, in 
his Lincoln (page 503) : " If he did not believe in it, the masses 
of 'the plain people' did, and no one was ever more anxious to 
do what was of good report among men." Lamon further says 
(page 197), that after Mr. Lincoln " appreciated * * * the 
violence and extent of the religious prejudices which freedom 
of discussion from his standpoint would be sure to rouse 
against him," and " the immense and augmenting power of the 
churches," * * * (page 502) " he indulged freely in indefi-; 
nite expressions about ' Divine Providence,' 'the justice of God,' 

♦Rhodes' History nf the United States (Vol. II., p. 312) ; and he adds : "When 
Lincoln entered political life he became reticent upon his religious opin- 
ions." Usher in Reminiscences of Lincoln (p. 91). 



W^as Lincoln a Christian? 13 



the "favor of the Most High,' in his published documents, but 
he nowhere ever professed the slightest faith in Jesus as the 
Son of God and the Saviour of men." (Page 501 et seq.) " He 
never told any one that he accepted Jesus as the Christ, or 
performed one of the acts which necessarily followed upon 
such a conviction (page 487)." "When he went to church at 
all, he went to mock, and came away to mimic." On page 157 
and thereafter Lamon tells minutely of the writing and the 
burning of a " little book," written by Lincoln with the purpose 
to disprove the truth of the Bible and the divinity of Christ, 
and tells how it was burned without his consent by his friend 
Hill, lest it should ruin his political career before a Christian 
people. He says that Hill's son called the book " infamous," 
and that " the book was burnt, but he never denied or regretted 
its composition; on the contrary, he made it the subject of 
free and frequent conversations with his friends at Springfield, 
and stated with much particularity and precision the origin, 
arguments and object of the work." 

Herndon describes the "essay" or " book " as " an argument 
against Christianity, striving to prove that the Bible was not 
inspired, and therefore not God's revelation, and that Jesus 
Christ was not the Son of God." Herndon says that Lincoln 
intended to have the "essay" published, and further says that 
Lincoln " would come into the clerk's office where I and some 
young men were writing, * * * ^mj would bring a Bible 
with him; would read a chapter and argue against it."* 

A letter of Herndon's, published in Lamon's Lincoln (page 
492 et scq.), says of Lincoln's contest with the Rev. Peter Cart- 
wright for Congress in 1848 (page 404): "In that contest he 
was accused of being an infidel, if not an atheist; he never 
denied the charge; would not; 'would die first,' because he 
knew it could be and would be proved." 

On pages 487 to 514 Lamon's Lincoln records numerous 
letters from Lincoln's intimate associates, and one from his 
wife, that fully confirm the above testimony as to his attitude 
of hostility to religion. 

* Herndon's Lincoln (Vol. III., p. 39 et seq. and 439 et seq.),ji,nd Lamon's Lin- 
coln (p. 492). 



14 The Real Lincoln. 



Lincoln's Jokes and Stories, 

Holland's Lincoln says of the indecency of his jokes and 
stories: " It is useless for Mr. Lincoln's biographers to ignore 
this habit; the whole West, if not the whole country (he is 
writing in 1866) is full of these stories, and there is no doubt 
at all that he indulged in them with the same freedom that he 
did in those of a less objectionable character." 

Again he says (page 251): * * * "Men who knew him 
throughout all his professional and political life * * * have 
said that he was the foulest in his jests and stories of any man 
in the country." 

Comprehensive as this indictment is, it is fully sustained 
by testimony submitted below from Morse, Hapgood, Piatt, 
Rhodes, Lamon and — most shocking testimony of all — from 
Herndon. 

Norman Hapgood, the latest biographer of Lincoln (of 1900), 
and Morse, the next latest (of 1892), confirm the "revelations" 
and the "ghastly ejcposures" about Lincoln that will be de- 
scribed below as recorded by Lamon and by Herndon. Morse 
says that a necessity and duty rested on those biographers to 
record these truths, as they both claim, and Hapgood says, 
" Herndon has told the President's early life with refreshing 
honesty and with more information than any one else."* Gen- 
eral Donn Piatt records an occasion when he heard Lincoln 
tell stories, "no one of which will bear printing." Lamon adds 
to all this his testimony that this habit of Lincoln "was re- 
strained by no presence and no occasion," and Piatt refers to 
him as "the man who could open a Cabinet meeting called to 
discuss the Emancipation Proclamation by reading aloud Arte- 
mus "Ward," and refers to Gettysburg as "the field that he 
shamed with a ribald song," making reference to a song that 
Lincoln asked for and got sung on the Gettysburg battlefield, 
the day he made his celebrated address there. This behavior 
has been much discussed by his eulogists, and defended as a 
relief necessary for a nature so sensitive and high-wrought.f 

*Morse's Lincoln {Vol. I., pp. 13 and 192 et seq.); B.a,pgooA's Lincoln (Pre- 
face p. 8). 

+ Lamon's Lincoln (p. 430), and Reminiscenees of Lincoln (p. 486 et seq., and p. 
481 et seq., and p. 455). 



Lincoln^ s Jokes and Stories. 15 



" Was ever so sublime a thing ushered in by the ridiculous?" 
says Rhodes. (Vol. IV., page 161.) 

Herndon gives in his first volume (at page 55 and there- 
after) a copy of a satire written by Lincoln,- The First Chronicle 
of Rcuhcn, and an account of the very slight provocation under 
which Lincoln wrote it, and in two foot notes describes the 
exceedingly base and indecent device by which Lincoln brought 
about the events which gave opportunity for this satire; and 
Herndon adds some verses written and circulated by Lincoln 
which he considers even more vile than the "Chronicle." Of 
these verses Lamon says, " It is impossible to transcribe them," 
in his Liiicohi (pages 63 and 64). Decency does not permit The 
publication of the Chronicle or the verses here. 

In neither of A. K. McClure's books, Lincoln and Men of the 
War Time, published in 1892, or Our Presidents, Etc., published 
in 1900, does he offer any contradiction of the " revelations," 
and " ghastly disclosures " that Lamon and Herndon had pub- 
lished to the world so long before, but McClure does say in the 
earlier of the books, in the preface (page 2), " The closest men 
to Lincoln, before and after his election to the presidency, were 
David Davis, Leonard Swett, Ward H. Lamon and William H. 
Herndon." Letters of the two first named are among the 
letters referred to above, published by Lamon as evidence of 
Lincoln's attitude toward religion. 

If any would take refuge in the hope that the responsibili- 
ties of his high office raised Lincoln above these habits of 
indecency and godlessness, they are met by authentic stories 
of his grossly unseemly behavior as President, by the evidence 
of Lamon, the chosen associate of his lifetime, that his indul- 
gence in gross jokes and stories was " restrained by no presence 
and no occasion," and by a letter of Nicolay, his senior private 
secretary throughout his administration, which states that he 
perceived no change in Lincoln's attitude toward religion after 
his entrance on the presidency.* 



* Lamon's Lnico/n (p. 4S0 and pp. 4S7 to 504). The Cosmopolitan, of Marcli, 
1901, says that Nicolay "probably was closer to the martyred President than 
any other man. * * * xhat he knew Lincoln as President and as man 
more intimately than any other man." * * Rhodes is everywhere zealous 



16 The Real Lincoln. 



Estimates of Lincoln Entertained by the Greatest Repub- 
licans of his Day and by the Greatest of his Associates 
in his Public Careen 

The evidence thus far submitted concerns chiefly the per- 
sonal character of Lincoln, and his private career. Let us 
proceed to consider evidence to show that his character and 
conduct of public affairs provoked the bitterest censure from 
a very great number of his co-workers in his achievements, 
among whom may be named Greeley, Thaddeus Stevens, Sum- 
ner, Trumbull, Zach. Chandler, Fred. Douglas, Beecher, 
Wendell Phillips, Wilson, Hamlin and Seward; while the most 
bitter and contemptuous and persistent of all Lincoln's critics 
were Chase, Secretary of the Treasury and Chief Justice, and 
Stanton, known ever since as his great War Secretary. 

Ben Perley Poore, in Reminiscences of Lincoln (page 248), 
shows Beecher's censures of Lincoln, and so do Beecher's 
editorials in the Independent of 1862, and Rhodes' History of 
the United States (page 462), which shows, too (page 463), 
that Senator Wilson, of Massachusetts, was among Lincoln's 
opponents for re-election in 1864. 

Hapgood quotes Wendell Phillips about Lincoln: "Who is 
this huckster in politics? Who is this County Court lawyer?" 
Morse gives severe censures of Lincoln by Wendell Phillips. 
McClure records bitter reprobation of him by Thaddeus 
Stevens. Ida Tarbell calls Sumner, Wade, Winter Davis and 
Chase " malicious foes of Lincoln," on the authority of one 

to defend Lincoln, but he thinks fit to record the foUowing (History of the 
United .Stages, Vol. IV., p. 471, note and p. 518), prefacing it with the state- 
ment that the World was then the organ of the best element of the Demo- 
cratic party ; that the Neiv York World, of June 19th. 1864. called Lincoln "an 
ignorant, boorish, third-rate, backwoods lawyer," and reported that the 
spokesman of a delegation sent to carry the resolutions of a great religious 
organization to the President, publicly denounced him as •' disgracefully 
unfit for the high office"; and tliat a Republican Senator from New York 
was reported to have left tlie President's presence because his self-respect 
would not permit him to stay and listen to tlie language he employed. 
Rhodes further sets down "a tradition" tliat Andrews, tlie great WarGover- 
nor of Massacliusetts, when pressing a matter he had at lieart, went away 
in disgust at being put off by the President with " a smutty story." 



Estimates of Lincoln. 17 

of Lincoln's closest intimates, Leonard Swett, and makes the 
remarkable and comprehensive concession that " about all the 
most prominent leaders * * * were actively opposed to 
Lincoln," and mentions Greeley as their chief. McClure's 
Lincoln shows the hostility to Lincoln of Sumner, Trumbull and 
Chandler, and of his Vice-President, Hamlin. 

Fremont, who eight years before had received every Repub- 
lican vote for President, charged Lincoln with " incapacity 
and selfishness," with "disregard of personal rights," with 
" violation of personal liberty and liberty of the press," with 
" feebleness and want of principle," and says: " The ordinary 
rights under the Constitution and laws of the country have 
been violated"; and he further accuses Lincoln of " managing 
the war for personal ends." 

Holland shows Fremont, Wendell Phillips, Fred Douglas 
and Greeley as leaders in the very nearly successful effort to 
defeat Lincoln's second election. The call for the convention 
for that purpose, held in Cleveland May 31, 1864, said that " the 
public liberty was in danger"; that its object was to arouse 
the people, " and bring them to realize that, while we are 
saturating Southern soil with the best blood of the country 
in the name of liberty, we have really parted with it at home."* 

McClure's Lincohi, recording the hostile attitude toward 
Lincoln of the leading members of the Cabinet, makes a con- 
cession (page 54) comprehensive as Miss Tarbell's above: 
" Outside of the Cabinet the leaders were equally discordant 
and quite as distrustful of the ability of Lincoln to fill his 
great office. Sumner, Trumbull, Chandler, Wade, Winter Davis 
and the men to whom the nation then turned as the great 
representative men of the new political power, did not conceal 
their distrust of Lincoln, and he had little support from them 
at any time during his administration," and McClure says 
again (page 289 et scq.): "Greeley was a perpetual thorn in 
Lincoln's side * * * ^nd almost constantly criticised him 
boldly and often bitterly. * * * Greeley labored (page 296) 



* Hapgood's Lincoln (\>. 164 j; Morse's Lincoln (Vol. I., p. 177); McClure's 
Lincoln (p. 117 and p. 259 and p. 54 et scq. and p. 104) ; Ida Tarbell, in McClure's 
Magazine for 1899 (p. 277) and for July, 1899 (p. 218 cl scq.), and Holland's Lin- 
coln (p . 259 et seq. ) 



18 The Real Lincoln. 



most faithfully to accomplish Lincoln's overthrow in his great 
struggle for re-election in 1864." See Morse's Lincoln (Vol. II., 
page 193). And Edward Everett Hale's new book, Lowell, Etc. 
(page 178 ct seq.) shows that even the circumstances of Lin- 
coln's death did not for a day abate Greeley's reprobation. 

The careful reader will not fail to observe that Lincoln's 
first term of four years was at this time nearly over, so that all 
this bitter censure from his associates was based on full knowl- 
edge of him. 

Seward has been much criticised and accused of rare pre- 
sumption for a letter that he wrote to the President as Secre- 
tary of State, one month after his first inauguration, because 
the letter manifested a sense of superiority, and condescend- 
ingly offered his advice and aid and leadership. It is possible 
that Seward did feel some of the contempt for Lincoln that 
Hiis brethren in the Cabinet, Chase and Stanton, never ceased 
to express freely for Lincoln and very frequently showed to his 
jface throughout their long terms of office, as will be shown. 
Like them. Governor Seward was a man of the highest social 
standing, and of large experience in the highest public func- 
tions. The Lincoln that so many now call a hero and a saint 
Is exceedingly different from the Lincoln that the people who 
came in contact with him knew up to the time of his death, 
as is frankly avowed further on in this sketch by Adams and 
Piatt, and reluctantly conceded by Crittenden and Rhodes. 
"What he was capable of in personal habits, manners and 
morals has been shown in the account of the " First Chronicle 
of Reuben," and his submission to humiliations such as have 
been described is not unaccountable. 

Few were more ardent Abolitionists than Seward, as shown 
in Bancroft's late Life of him, but he was no tiro in statecraft, 
and the policy he so authoritatively suggested was to " change 
the question before the public from one upon slavery for a 
question upon union or disunion." 

Lincoln at once adopted that policy, and by means of it 
he precipitated the war. Its astuteness in distracting men's 
minds from the matter of slavery has been much commended. 
General Butler says that as late as July, 1861, no one in power 



Estimates of Lincoln. 19 

was in favor of emancipation. This letter of Seward's did not 
come to light for years, and Seward might well say as he did, 
that Lincoln " had a cunning that was genius." 

McClure's Lincoln (page 150 et seq.) says: " Stanton had been 
in open and malignant opposition to the administration only 
a few months before." (This was in January, 1862.) " Stanton 
often spoke of and to public men, military and civil, with a 
withering sneer. I have heard him scores of times thus speak 
of Lincoln and several times thus speak to Lincoln.*" * * * 
"After Stanton's retirement from the Buchanan Cabinet, when 
Lincoln was inaugurated, he maintained the closest confi- 
dential relations with Buchanan, and wrote him many letters 
expressing the utmost contempt for Lincoln." * * " These 
letters, * * * given to the public in Curtis' Life of 
Buchanan, speak freely of the painful imbecility of Lincoln, 
the venality and corruption which ran riot in the government," 
and McClure goes on: " It is an open secret that Stanton 
advised the revolutionary overthrow of the Lincoln govern- 
ment, to be replaced by General McClellan as Military Dictator. 
* * * These letters, published by Curtis, bad as they are, 
are not the worst letters written by Stanton to Buchanan. 
Some of them are so violent in their expression against Lin- 
coln * * * that they have been charitably withheld from 
the public. "t Whitney, in his On Circuit with Lincoln (page 
424), tells of these suppressed letters. See, too, his pages 422 
to 424 et sr<]., and Ben Perley Poore, in Reminiscences of Lincoln 
(page 223) and Kasson in Reminiscences of Lincoln (page 381), 
all in confirmation of Stanton's estimate and treatment of 
Lincoln. Hapgood's Lincoln refers (page 164) to Stanton's 
" brutal absence of decent personal feeling " towards Lincoln, 
and tells of Stanton's insulting behavior when they met five 
years earlier, of which meeting Stanton said that he " had 

* McClure's Lincoln (p. 150 etseq. and p. 155). Yet to a man of President 
Buchanan's character and standing Stanton showed an excess of defer- 
ence; for Mr. Buchanan complained, in a letter to his niece. Miss Harriet 
Lane, (See Curtis'si/fe f)/ />'Mr//ajian. Vol. II., p. 533) that Stanton, ^hen In 
his cabinet. " was always on my side and flattered nie ad nauseam." 

t HapRood's Lincoln (p. 254), Gorham's Life of Stanton (Vol. I , p. 213). 



20 The Real Lincoln. 



met him at the bar and found him a low, cunning clown."^ 
McClure says of Stanton: " He had little respect for Lincoln's 
fitness for the presidency." 

Of Chase, McClure says, in his Lincoln (page 8) : " Chase 
was the most irritating fly in the Lincoln ointment." Ida 
Tarbell says: "But Mr. Chase was never able to realize Mr. 
Lincoln's greatness." Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln says about 
Chase: " Even to complete strangers he could not write with- 
out speaking slightingly about the President. He kept up this 
habit to the end of Lincoln's lifs." * * * " But his attitude 
towards the President, it is hardly too much to say, was one 
which varied between the limits of active hostility and benevo- 
lent contempt." Yet none rate Chase higher than Nicolay and 
Hay do for character, talent and patriotism. Ehodes says Chase 
" dealt censure unrestrained to the President's conduct of the 
war."t 

How Far Did the North and the West Approve the War 
and Emancipation ? 

The impression upon the minds of thousands of people 
about the War between the States may be formulated as fol- 
lows: That at the firing upon Fort Sumter, the people of the 
Northern States rose with one mind and for the four years 
of the war ungrudgingly poured forth their treasure and shed 
their blood to re-establish the Union and to free the slaves. 
Let us consider how much foundation there is for this popular 
impression. 

In order to show the enormous difficulties overcome by their 
hero, Lincoln, in accomplishing his two notable achievements, 
his eulogists have furnished much evidence that goes to show 

* Ben Perley Pooreln Heminincences of Lincoln (p. 223). Ida Tarbell in 
McClure's MagazinetoT March, 1899, tells the story of this earliest manifesta- 
tion of Stanton's contempt for Lincoln. Morse's Lincoln says (Vol. I., p. 327 
that Stanton " carried his revilings of the President to the point of coarse 
personal insults," and refers to his (p. 326) " habitual insults." 

+ McClure's Lincoln (p. 156, and besides pp. 180, 151, 155 and p. 9; Ida Tar- 
bell In McClure's Magazine for January, 1899, Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. 
IX., p. 389, Vol. VI., p. 264), and elsewhere. Rhodes' History of the United 
States (Vol. IV., p. 205). 



War and Emancipation. 21 

that both the coercion of the South and the emancipation of 
the negroes were accomplished against the will of the Demo- 
cratic party and of no small part of the Republican party in 
the North and the West, and their evidence to that effect will 
now be submitted. 

As Abolition had been talked of long before the coercion 
of the South was thought of, it seems best to consider, first, 
the question. How far did the North and the West approve 
emancipation? 

Let us examine the testimony on this question before and 
after Lincoln became President. 

If the Fugitive-Slave laws seem to any shameful, Andrews, 
long president of Brown University, bitterest of Abolitionists, 
concedes that those laws were passed by a Congress that had 
a decided majority of Northern men, and Lincoln repeatedly 
pledged himself to their execution * and put such a pledge into 
his Inaugural. Andrews records that Abolition was opposed 
by an overwhelming majority of the Northern people and 
the Western people, not only down to the war, but during the 
whole of it, and as long as opposition to it was at all safe. 
Bitter as his reprobation of thiS public sentiment is, he frankly 
concedes it, and says that between 1830 and 1840 " there was 
hardly a place of any size where anyone could advocate emanci- 
pation," and that " by 1850 there were few places where an 
Abolitionist might not safely speak his mind "; that in 1841 
there were but two advocates of it in Congress, f " Charles 
Francis Adams' Life " records (page 29) that Garrison was 
mobbed in Boston in 1835 for being an Abolitionist. See, also, 
page 33 and page 58. Page 105 and thereafter shows how 
ill-esteemed and shabby the Republican party in Washington 
was as late as 1859. In Edward Everett Hale's lately published 
book, "James Russell Lowell, Etc." he names <v>age 22 et 
seq.) a class-mate who was, he thinks, the only Abolitionist in 
Harvard College in 1838, and says " Boston as Boston hated 

* Holland's Lincoln (p. 347). 

+ Andrews' History of the United States (Vol. II,, p. 15). It describes besides 
the destruction of charitable scliools for negroes and even of their homes, 
by people regarded as the most respectable classes of society in Connecticut 
and elsewhere in New England and the prohibition by law of schools for 
negro children. See heading of Chapter IX. in John A. Logan's Oreat 
Conspiracy. 



22 The Real Lincoln. 



Abolitionism," and the stevedores and longshoremen * * * 
hated " a nigger " — that Dr. Palfrey, once of the Divinity 
Faculty of Harvard, "like most men with whom he lived, had 
opposed Abolition with all his might, his voice and his pen," 
and he adds that " the conflict at the outset was not a crusade 
against slavery." The Rev. Henry Ward Beecher said in an 
address to the people of Manchester, England,* that in the 
North "Abolitionists were rejected by society * * * * 
blighted in political life "; that to be called an Abolitionist 
caused a merchant to be avoided as if he had the plague; 
that the "doors of confidence were closed upon him" in the 
church. Holland's Lincoln (page 67) says that in 1830 the 
" prevailing sentiment " of Illinois was " in favor of slavery " 
* * * " the Abolitionist was despised by both parties." And 
George William Curtis f reproaches his own people as follows: 
" We betrayed our own principles, and those who would not 
betray them we reviled as fanatics and traitors; we made 
the name of Abolitionist more odious than any in our annals 
(Vol. I., page 28). If a man * * * died for liberty, as 
Lovejoy did at Alton, he was called a fanatical fool." Of the 
same death the editor of the book says (Vol. I., page 130), " and 
the country scowled, and muttered 'Served him right.' " j 
Curtis goes on, " "The Fugitive-Slave law was vigorously en- 
forced in Ohio and other States. Volume I. (page 75 et scq.) 
quotes the declaration of Edward Everett as Governor of 
Massachusetts, that "discussion that leads to insurrection is 
an offence against the Commonwealth," and quotes Daniel 
Webster that " it is an affair of high morals to aid in 
enforcing the Fugitive-Slave law." He quotes (Vol. I., page 
88) a speech in 1859 of Stephen A. Douglas that fully justified 
slavery, and he quotes him as saying (page 51), "If you go 
over into Virginia to steal her negroes, she will catch you and 
put you in jail, with other thieves." In the same spirit of 
scornful denunciation as the above, Curtis sets forth (Vol. I., 



* See a collection of his speeches In the P)-alt Library, Baltimore, ma.r'ked 
53866-2557. 

+ His Orations (Vol. I., p. 146). 

t Lovejoy was an Abolitionist who was killed by a mob in Alton. Illinois, 
in 1836. 



Wa7- and Emancipation. 23 

pages 80 to 82) the purpose the North entertained not to inter- 
fere with slavery. " In other free States men were flying for 
their lives; were mobbed, seized, imprisoned, maimed, mur- 
dered " * * * And all this was as late as 1850. " The 
Southern policy (Vol. I., page 130 et seq.) seemed to conquer. 
The church, the college, trade, fashion, the" vast political 
parties, took Calhoun's side. * * * in Boston, in Philadel- 
phia, in New York, in Utica, in New Haven, and in a hundred 
villages, when an American citizen proposed to say what he 
thought of a great public question, * * * he was insulted, 
mobbed, chased and maltreated." " The Governor of Ohio 
(Vol. I., page 131) actually delivered a citizen of that State 
to the demand of Kentucky to be tried for helping a slave to 
escape." Volume I. (page 132) gives Seward's picture of the 
entire unanimity of the Washington government both at home 
and abroad in supporting the Southern side, and says (page 
139), " Fernando Wood and the New York Herald were the 
true spokesmen of the confused public sentiment of the city 
of New York, when one proposed the secession of the city and 
the other proposed the adoption of the Montgomery Constitu- 
tion " — that is, the Constitution of the Confederate States, 
which was adopted at Montgomery, Alabama. And Curtis 
goes on: " If the city of New York in February, 1861, had vo|ed 
upon its acceptance, it would have been adopted." At page 
174, Curtis says, referring to the enlistment of negro soldiers, 
* * * " but I remember that four years ago there were good 
men among us who said, ' If white hands can't win this fight, 
let it be lost.' " Does not Curtis here concede that " white 
hands" did not win the fight? Whether he does or not, did 
not Lincoln in his Emancipation Proclamation concede that 
" white hands " could not or would not win the fight, and did 
not Lincoln frequently say afterwards in defence of his auto- 
cratic action, that but for his emancipating and arming the 
negroes the fight would not have been won? And — finally — 
did the " wnite hands " of the great North and West lack 
numbers or wealth or courage to win the fight, if it had been 
their tcill? 

The popular will about emancipation was accurately 
measured by the vote that Fremont got, running as Free-Soil 



24 The Real Lincoln. 



candidate, only four years before Lincoln's election. His votes 
from the whole United States were only 146,149. Schouler's 
" History of the United States " (pages 214 et seq.) records 
that General B. F. Butler offered his Massachusetts brigade to 
put down any negro insurrection, and that " few, North or 
South, during the first year of the war, sought, or approved 
emancipation." General B. F. Butler* says: " If we had beaten 
at Bull Run, I have no doubt the whole contest would have 
been patched up by concessions to slavery, as no one in power 
then was ready for its abolition." Lincoln himself said in his 
famous letter to Greeley in the Tribune, " If I could save the 
Union without freeing any slave I would do it." 

Hardly any testimony on the question. How the Border 
States regarded emancipation could be better than Lincoln's 
own, which we have. When a delegation urged him to emanci- 
pate the negroes by a proclamation, he expressed the appre- 
hension t that, if he should do as they wished, fifty thousand 
rifles from the Border States, then serving in the army of the 
Union, might go over to the opposing side; and Ida Tarbell 
tells us in McClitre's Maoazine for May, 1899, that Lincoln said 
that, if he should enlist negroes in his army, two hundred 
thousand muskets that he had put into the hands of Border- 
St*te men would be turned against the Union army. 

The Issue Changed from Slavery to Saving- the Union. 

Following, if not guided by, Seward's advice showed above, 
Lincoln disclaimed any purpose of emancipation, but most 
astutely used the firing on Fort Sumter to rouse the war spirit. 
The word " astutely " is aptly applied, for the flag had been 
fired on in the same place two months earlier — an exceedingly 
important fact which has been very strangely ignored, but 
cannot be denied. The steamer Star of the West had been 
sent two months earlier with food and two hundred recruits 
to relieve Fort Sumter, % and while flying the great flag of a 



*Butler\s Book (p. 293), and Phillips Brooks wrote almost exactly the 
same In a letter, October, 1862, Life and Letters, by Allen. 
•hNicolay and Hay's Lincoln, 
t Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. VIII., p. 96 et seq.) 



The Issue Changed. 2-5 

garrison, was fired on, hit twice, and driven away—" retired 
a little ignominiously," Morse reports it*— and he adds that 
Senator Wigfall jeered insolently: "Your flag has been in- 
sulted, redress it if you dare." George William Curtis f de- 
plores that they " were unable or unwilling to avenge a mortal 
insult to our own flag in our own waters upon the Star of the 
West." Ropes and Channing+ give a like description of the 
occurrence. Russell writes to the London Times from America: 
r'lt is absurd to assert * * * that the sudden outburst 
v/hen Fort Sumter was fired upon was caused by the insult 
to the flag. Why, the flag had been fired on long before 
Sumter was attacked * * * ^ jj^d been torn down from 
the United States arsenals and forts all over the South and 
fired upon when the Federal fiag was flying from the Star of 
the West." He says, too, " secession was an accomplished fact 
months before Lincoln came into ofllce, but we heard no talk 
of rebels and pirates till Sumter had fallen. * * * The 
North was perfectly quiescent." Rhodes says that Chase called 
it " an accomplished revolution," when Lincoln entered on the 
presidency. || 

This " flring on the flag " on the Star of the West produced 
no sensation at all, but was accepted by the whole country 
as an accompaniment of the secession of the States. 

We have learned afresh of late the meaning of the words 
used above, " to rouse the War .Spirit." A very respectable 
part of the wisdom and virtue of this country deplore and 
reprobate the war now waging by the United States, and yet 
they do make and can make no opposition, but support the 
war just as those do who approve it most warmly. We know 
now that a war, once begun, sweeps into its support, not only 
the regular army, the navy, the Treasury, but volunteer organi- 
zations and the youth of the country, who think they must 
respond to any national call for arms. 



* Morse's Lincoln (Vol. I., p. 196;. 
+ Orations (Vol. I., p. 141). 

I Ropes Story of the Civil War (Pt. I., p. 45. Channinq's Short Hi^torn of the 
United States {p. 3\Z). ' ' 

^5 Russell's Diary North and South (p. 72 et seq., and p. 131 et seg.) 

II Rhodes' History of the United States (Vol. III., p. .'543). 



26 The Real Lincoln. 



How Far Did the North and the "West Approve Forcing 
Back the South Into the Union ? 

The authorities we quote have put on record ample proof 
of a widespread conviction in the North and the West in 
1861 that the use of force to retain States in the Union was 
not only inadmissible under the Constitution, but abhorrent 
to the principles on which their political institutions rested. 

Russell in his BUtnj (page 13) quotes Bancroft, the his- 
torian, afterwards Minister to England, for the opinion in 1860 
that the United States had no authority to coerce the people 
of the South; which opinion, Bancroft told Russell, was widely 
entertained among the most prominent men of all classes in 
the North; and Russell reports the same opinion as prevailing 
in March, 1861 (page 14 ct seq.) in New York and in Washing- 
ton — and that there was " little sympathy with and no respect 
for (page 15) Lincoln." He found Senator Sumner and Secre- 
tary Chase disposed to let the Southern States " go out with 
their slavery." 

The Life of Charles Fnmeis Adams, Lincoln's Minister to 
England, says (page 49 et seq.) that " up to the very day of 
the firing on the flag, the attitude of the Northern States, even 
in case of hostilities, was open to grave question, while that of 
the Border States did not admit of a doubt " * * * " that 
Mr. Seward, the member of the President's Cabinet in charge 
of foreign affairs, both in his official papers and his private 
talk, repudiated not only the right, but the wish even to use 
armed force in subjugating the Southern States against the 
will of a majority of the people, and declared that the President 
willingly (page 151) accepted as true the cardinal dogma of 
the seceding States, that the Federal Government had no 
authority for coercion; * * * ^^(\ ^11 this time (page 150) 
the Southern sympathizers throughout the ' loyal ' States 
were earnest and outspoken." 

General B. F. Butler records that Henry Dunning, Mayor 
of Hartford, called the City Council together " to consult if 
my troops should be allowed to go through Hartford on the 



Forcing Back the South. 27 

way to the war. He was a true, loyal man, but did not believe 
in having a war. * * * He was a patriot to the core."* 

Morse's Lincoln (Vol. I., p. 231) makes the following re- 
markable statement: " Greeley and Seward and Wendell 
Phillips, representative men, were little better than seces- 
sionists. The statement sounds ridiculous, yet the proof 
against each comes from his own mouth. The Tribune had 
retracted none of those disunion sentiments of which examples 
have been given." f 

Even so late as April 10, 1861, Sev/ard wrote officially to 
Charles Francis Adams, Minister to England, " Only an im- 
perial and despotic government could subjugate thoroughly 
disaffected and insurrectionary members of the State." On 
April 9th the rumor of a fight at Sumter being spread abroad, 
Wendell Phillips said, " Here are a series of States girding the 
Gulf who think that their peculiar institutions require that 
they should have a separate government; they have a right to 
decide that question without appealing to you and to me 
* * * Standing with the principles of '76 behind us, who 
can deny them the right? * * * Abraham Lincoln has no 
right to a soldier in Fort Sumter * * * you cannot go 
through Massachusetts, and recruit men to bombard Charleston 
and New Orleans." Morse is comprehensive in his statement 
of the position taken by the Republicans, saying of Lincoln's 
early days in Washington: * * * " None of the distin- 
guished men, leaders of his own party whom Lincoln found 
about him at Washington, were in a frame of mind to assist 
him efficiently." Andrews deplores the fact that " coolness 
and absurd prejudice against coercing largely possessed even 
the loyal masses," and that (Vol. II., page 95) " throughout the 
North the feeling was strong against all efforts at coercion." 
McClure says: " Even in Philadelphia * * * nearly the 
whole commercial and financial interests were arrayed against 
Lincoln at first.".t Woodrow Wilson's DiviMon and Reunion 



* Butler's Book (p. 29^); Ropes' Slory of the Civil War (Pt. I., p. 14 et seq); 
Morse's Lincoln (Vol. 1, p. 190). and Greeley's American Confiict (p. 91 et seq.) 

+ Morse and others quote, from Greeley's editorials in his Tribune, repeated 
bitter censures of forcing the seceded States back into the Union. 

t Morse's Lincoln (Vol. I., p. 223 and p. 4) ; 3/cClure's Our Prrside7tts (p. 177). 



28 The Real Lincoln. 



says (page 214) that " President Buchanan agreed with his 
Attorney-General that there was no constitutional means or 
warrant for coercing a State " (as indeed his last message 
shows beyond doubt), and adds that " such for the time seemed 
to be the general opinion of the country." 

For months after the secession of South Carolina, while the 
other States were successively passing ordinances of secession 
and seizing the forts, arsenals, etc., within their boundaries, 
the government at Washington, President, Cabinet, Supreme 
Court and Congress, took not one step toward coercion, nor 
did either house of Congress listen to a suggestion of emanci- 
pation. These Senators and Representatives were from the 
North and the West only, and we may surely conclude that, 
at so critical a period they ascertained and carried out the 
will of their constituents. See the testimony of Butler's Book, 
that " during the whole War of the Rebellion the government 
was rarely ever aided, but usually impeded by the decisions 
of the Supreme Court, so that the President was obliged to 
suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in order to relieve himself 
from the rulings of the court." This is stated by General 
Butler quite seriously and not, as might possibly be supposed, 
in any satirical mood. Ropes' Sfori/ of the Cirll War (pt. I., 
page 19) says: " It is true that during the winter of 1860 
Congress took no action whatever looking toward preparation 
for the conquest of the outgoing States." * * * From page 
355 to 553 of the first volume of Greeley's Aineriean Conflict 
there is little but a record of the opposition to coercion of the 
South in the " loyal " States. Pages 357 et seq. and 354 et seq. 
show the action of the Legislatures of New Jersey and Illinois, 
both nearly unanimous, in the same direction. See, also (Vol. 
I., page 380 et seq.) the very strong support given to the amend- 
ment of the Constitution proposed by one whom Greeley called 
" the venerable and Union-loving Crittenden of Kentucky," 
which amendment guaranteed ample protection to slavery, and 
it could have been passed in Congress but for the fact that 
they knew the South thought the time for compromise was 
past. 

Greeley describes (page 387 et seq.) a tremendous demon- 
stration against the war made by New York State in February, 



Forcing Back the South. 29 

1861, in which her leaders promised about all the South could 
ask. In this, as in the New York State Democratic Conven- 
tion, which he describes as " probably the strongest and most 
imposing assembly of delegates ever convened in the State " 
(page 392 et scq.), Greeley records expressions of the purpose, 
not only not to coerce, but to aid the South in case of war, 
which expressions were heard with applause; and in a speech 
of James S. Thayer, it was alleged that these views had been 
asserted in the last election by 333,000 votes in New York. 
Greeley further makes the following very remarkable state- 
ment: " That thi'oughout the Free States eminent and eager 
advocates of adhesion to the new Confederacy by those States 
were widely heard and heeded." For more evidence to the same 
effect of the feeling of the North and the West, &ee McCall's 
Life of TJiad. Stcrens (pages 122 to 132 ct scq., page 211 ct scq. 
and page 219 ct ,scq.). The Life of /liiiiiiibal Hamlin, Lincoln's 
Vice-President, quotes Hamlin (page 459): "If we had had a 
common union in the North and a common loyalty to the 
government, we could have ended this Civil War months ago, 
but this aid and comfort the rebels had received from the 
Northern allies * * * " 

The advocacy of views strongly adverse to the war and to 
emancipation did not cease in the North and the West when 
the war began, dangerous as it soon became to advocate them. 
Imprisonment without trial, trials by court-martial, sentences 
to confinement in prisons or fortresses remote from home and 
friends, did reduce at last to silence all but the boldest — even 
Missourians, Kentuckians and Marylanders; and similar 
methods of repression were used in States remotest from the 
scenes of the war. Russell's DUny (page 198) mentions the 
news that * * * " members of the Maryland Legislature 
have been seized by the Federal authorities." This is of date 
September 11, 1861. See Dunning's Es.wys on the Ciril War, etc. 
(Pages 19, 21 ct scq.) 

Rhodes' Eistory of the Tiiitcd l^tatcs (Vol. IV., page 155) 
describes minutely the imprisonments at different times and 
places of two men of Indiana (Olds and Walk), who, he says, 
enjoyed before, then, and thereafter the highest respect and 
confidence of their neighbors and constituents, and were 



30 Tlic Real Lincoln. 



honored by them the more for their sufferings, and Dunning 
instances these as samples of much other such treatment of 
those who opposed the war and emancipation. 

Gorham's Life of Stanton quotes a proclamation of Stanton 
as Secretary of War issued in justification of Lincoln's usurpa- 
tion of despotic power over liberty and life, which sets forth 
(Vol. I., page 264 ct scq.) that he found " treason " everywhere — 
in " Senate, House of Representatives, * * * the Cabinet, 
the foreign Ministers, * * * land and naval forces, * * * 
revenue, * * * post office, * * * territorial govern- 
ments and Indian reserves, judges, governors, legislators, * * 
even in the most loyal regions; secret societies * * * with 
perverted sympathies * * * furnishing men and money to 
the insurgents, * * * fortifications, navy-yards, arsenals 
betrayed or abandoned to the insurgents, * * * voluntary 
enlistment ceasing," * * * &c. 

In New York State, Governor Horatio Seymour had enor- 
mous backing in his open opposition, as partly shown above, 
to the war before it began, and in opposition to it and emanci- 
pation, so far as was possible, to the end. Schouler's Ilistori/ 
of the United ^States (page 417 ct seq.) concedes that the State 
of New York was " obstructive to the President's wishes " — a 
mode of expression which is significant — and records that Sey- 
mour said in his Inaugural as Governor that " the conscription 
act was believed by one-half the people of the loyal States a 
violation of the supreme constitutional law." For his view 
of the purpose for which that act was procured, see Nicolay 
and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. VI., page 22 et seq.), which alleges that 
both Governor Seymour and Archbishop Hughes, not only 
made friendly addresses to the mob that was forcibly stopping 
the draft in New York city, but manifested a measure of 
sympathy with its purpose;' that Seymour in his address called 
the war " the imgodly conflict that is distracting the land," 
and said that the purpose of the draft was " to stuff ballot 
boxes with bogus soldier votes." Yet they concede that, in 
spite of all this, Seymour was (Vol. VI., pages 9 to 26) " then 
and to his death the most honored Democratic politician in 
the State." And this is shown beyond all question by the fact 
that, after the war was over he was selected by the National 



Forcing Back the South. 31 

Democratic party as its candidate for the Presidency. They 
attest also unstintedly Seymour's integrity and patriotism. 

In the State of Ohio, Vallandigham's following in his re- 
sistance was so strong that he was banished by order of 
President Lincoln — a penalty not before known to the country, 
and " not for deeds done, but for words spoken," to use the 
language in which it was denounced by John Sherman, and 
these were words that had been spoken in public debate and 
received with wild applause by thousands of his constituents.* 

In Indiana Governor Morton got from Lincoln, through 
Stanton, aid by which he usurped every function of the govern- 
ment of the State, entirely overruling the will of the people; 
conclusive evidence of which makes up a large part of the first 
volume of Foulke's Life of (lorcnior Morton, published as late 
as 1899; nor is it recorded in censure of Morton. Chapter 
XXII. is headed " I am the State," and begins, " Morton accom- 
plished what had never before been attempted in American 
history. For two years he carried on the government of a 
great State solely by his own personal energy, raising money 
without taxation on his own responsibility and distributing it 
through bureaus organized by himself." French's Life of Morton 
says (page 423) that at the commencement of the year 1863 
* * * the secret enemies of the government * * * j^^fj 
succeeded in the election of an Indiana Legislature, which 
" was principally composed of men sworn to oppose to the 
bitter end the prosecution of the war, with the purpose of 
encouraging the enemies of American liberty in their work of 
rebellion and destruction." Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln^ con- 
firms the above account of Indiana, and says that, but for 
Governor Morton the Indiana Legislature would have recog- 
nized the Confederacy and " dissolved the federal relation with 
the United States." They givej: a full account of the " dis- 

* Sherman's Recollections (Vol. I., p. 323), and Holland's Lincoln (p. i71 etseq.). 
who tells, too, of the bitter reprobation this provoked in New York. 
Nicolay and Hay tell (Vol. VII., p. 328) about the same story of Vallandig- 
ham and of tlie resentment (p. 341) in New York. 

•h(Vol. Yin. , I,. Set seg.) 

UYol. Yin., p. 29 etseg.) 



o2 The Real Lincoln. 



loyalty" in the North and the West, and say, too,* that "in 
the Western States the words Democrat and Copperhead 
became after January, 1863, practically synonymous, and a 
cognomen applied as a reproach was assumed with pride." 
Professor Channing, of Harvard, says-.f " In the Mississippi 
Valley hundreds of thousands of men either sympathized with 
the slave-holders or cared nothing about the slavery dispute." 
George S. Boutwell says -t " With varying degrees of intensity 
the Democratic party of the North sympathized with the South, 
and arraigned Lincoln and the Republican party for all that 
the country was called to endure. During the entire period 
of the war New York, Ohio and Illinois were doubtful States, 
and Indiana was kept in line only by the active and desperate 
fidelity of Oliver P. Morton." | Secretary Wells, of Lincoln's 
Cabinet, says {Atlantic Monthly, Vol. XVI., page 266) : " The 
Democrats were in sympathy with "the rebels * * * and 
opposed to the war itself." 

Probably few will question that the Border States disap- 
proved the coercion of the South and emancipation, but see 
the following: Ropes says, " and though Maryland, Kentucky 
and Missouri remained in the Union,]] yet the feeling of a con- 
siderable part of the people in those States in favor of the 
new movement was so strong — aided as it was by the convic- 
tion that their States would have seceded but for the active 
interference of the United States Government — ^that the South- 
ern cause received substantial aid from each of them." How 
" considerable a part of the people " it was may be inferred 
from the fa'ct that a proclamation from the War Department 
was addressed to Marylanders to declare regret for having to 
keep so large a number of their fellow citizens in prisons, and 
that public policy did not admit of their being brought to trial 
or allowed to know the charges on which they were arrested; 

* (Vol. IV., p. 234). 

f Channing's Short History nf the United States (p. 314). 

t Abraham Lincoln Tributes from his Associates (p. 85 et sefj.) 

^ See letter of Morton to Stanton reporting a formidable effort of citizens 
and soldiers of Indiana 'to withdraw from tlie Union. Rhodes' History of 
the United State? (Vol. IV., p. 223). 

II Missouri seceded, October 31, 1861, and Kentucky seceded, November 20 
1861.— Note by Editor. 



Forcing Back the South. 33 

and the lately published Recollections of Charles A. Dana record 
with complacency (page 236 et seq.) among his experiences as 
Assistant Secretary of War, the arrest in one day of ninety- 
seven of the leading people in Baltimore and their imprison- 
ment in Washington, " mostly in solitary confinement." 

Everywhere there were men who made more or less bitter 
protest or resistance against such subversion (by methods 
known only to the Sultan or the Czar), of what Americans had 
been taught to call the conditions of freedom — a free press, 
free speech, the writ of Habeas Corpus, and Trial by Tury. In 
Cincinnati, in Chicago, in Boston and elsewhere, demonsti'a- 
tions toward violent resistance very alarming to the Adminis- 
tration at Washington were suppressed with the strong hand 
before coming to a head. Gilmore's Personal Recollections of 
Lincoln, speaks (page 199) of " the wide Western Conspiracy 
so opportunely strangled in Chicago," and devotes a chapter to 
it. John A. Logan's Great Conspiracy (page 557) records " a 
gathering at Springfield, Illinois (Lincoln's home), June 13, 
1863, of nearly one hundred thousand Vallandigham, Anti-War, 
Peace, Democrats, which utterly repudiated the war." See, also, 
page 559 et seq. For account of " avowed hostility to Lincoln " 
in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and of opposition in 
New Jersey that " made the State disgraceful," see Allen's 
Life and Letters of Phillips Brooks, Vol. I., page 448. Of Massa- 
chusetts, we learn the following from General B. F. Butler* — 
" Massachusetts had the disgrace of a draft, intensified by the 
disgrace of a draft-riot, which had to be put down by force of 
arms." General Rosecrans reported to Washington the existence 
in the Western States of secret orders of men bound by oath 
to co-operate with the Confederates to the number of four 
hundred thousand men. Nicolay and Hay say that three hun- 
dred and fifty thousand was an exaggerated estimate of their 
numbers. 

When the storm was rising there came from the Democratic 
leaders in the " loyal " States as distinct asseverations of the 
wrongs the South was enduring, as full assurances that the 

* Butler's Book (p. 306). 
3 



34 The Real Lincoln. 

South had the right to withdraw from the partnership, as full 
denial of any possible right in the Federal Government to use 
coercion, as any Southern leader ever set forth; with further 
assurances that the Democrats of the North and the West 
would fight on the Southern side in any appeal to arms. 

The extreme Abolitionists also bitterly opposed the war. 
Theodore Roosevelt's Cronnccll, just from the press, says (page 
103), that at the close of the war " the Garrison * * * or 
disunion Abolitionists * * * had seen their cause triumph, 
not through, but in spite of their efforts." And Gorham's Life 
of Stanton (page 163 et seq.) says: " The Republicans * * * 
were divided into two classes, one which desired separation, 
etc., * * *" and (Vol. I., page 193) tells of "a new element, 
headed by prominent Republican leaders like Greeley and 
Chase, who thought that a union of non-slave-holding States 
would be preferable to any attempt to maintain by force the 
Union with the slave-holding States." Observe liow exactly 
these conclusions agreed with the conclusions to which the 
Southern leaders had come. 

A letter of Chase quoted in his Life by Warden (page 363 
et seq.) says: " It is precisely because they anticipate abolition 
as the result that the Garrison Abolitionists desire disunion." 
Schouler says of Garrison, Phillips and their immediate fol- 
lowers:*" They were the avowed disunionists on the Northern 
side." * * * 

In spite of the support of the war forced on the Democracy, 
as above described, they made a steady struggle in the courts, 
in Congress, and in the State governments to keep down the 
war to constitutional limits as far as possible, and to such 
conditions as might leave room for reconciliation in the future. 
Vallandigham's and Seymour's conduct furnish examples, and 
General McClellan's is another example. For years no pains 
were spared to cry down General McClellan in vindication 
of Lincoln's dealings with him, but evidence of the truth 
has been too strong. Even Nicolay and Hay have to 
concede to McClellan the very highest praise for pure patriot- 
ism, and the concessions have grown greater with each 
succeeding historian till Rhodes, one of the ablest, deplores 

*Scliouler"s History of the United States (Vol. VI., p. 225). 



Forcing Back the Soiith. 35 

the fact that Lincoln could not see McClellan as we see him, 
and that Lincoln deferred the capture of Richmond and the 
downfall of the Confederacy for two years by removing McClel- 
lan from command of the army.* Ropes passes hardly less 
severe censure on Lincoln for his dealings with McClellan, f and 
Rhodes and Ropes are very hostile critics of McClellan. See 
John Fiske's Elississlppi Talley in the Civil War (page 148 ct 
seq.), and his quotation of censure of Lincoln to the same 
effect from the Count of Paris. See Ida Tarbell in McClure's 
Magazine for May, 1899, pages 192 to 199 et seq. 

In this connection there are some unconscious betrayals of 
the real estimate of Lincoln that was entertained by a number 
of his most ardent eulogists. Six of his eulogists have thought 
it worth while, if not necessary, to declare very expressly their 
belief that Lincoln did not purposely betray General McClellan 
and his army in the Seven-Days' battles before Richmond. J 
McClellan, in his celebrated dispatch after his retreat re- 
proached Stanton with this atrocious crime, and so worded 
the dispatch that he imputed the same guilt to Lincoln. 
McClure's Lincoln, &c. (page 102) and Nicolay and Hay's 
Lincoln (pages 441, 442 and 451) deplore that McClellan should 
have believed Lincoln capable of it, both conceding to McClel- 
lan the most exalted character, ability and patriotism. 

Of Lincoln's dealing with McClellan, McClure says: " Many 
charged, as did McClellan, that he had been, with his army, 
deliberately betrayed by the Secretary of War, if not by 
Lincoln." ?. 

When Lincoln refused to hear at all, or see, the Southern 
commissioners — Clement Clay and James P. Holcombe — unless 
they could show " written authority from Jefferson Davis " to 

♦Rhodes' History of the United States (Vol. IV., p. 109, and p. 106 ctscg., and 
p. 117). 

i Ropes' Story of the Civ il^ War {T?t. II., p. 132 et seg., p. 442 e? seg., and p 
41Z etseg.) 

X McClure's Lincoln {p. 207) ; Holland's Lincoln (p. 53 et seg.) ; Ropas' Story of 
the Civil War (Pt. II., pp.116, 171, and in another place, Rhodes' History of 
the United Siates (Vol. IV., p. 550 et seg.); Hon. George S. Boutwell, in 
Tributes from his Associates (p. 69); Schouler's History of the United States (p. 
193 et seg.) 

5 McClure's Lincoln, etc. (pp. 208, 248), and Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. 
VI., p. ISQetseg.) 



>6 The Real Lincoln. 



make unconditional surrender, Greeley, who had procured their 
coming to negotiate a cessation of the war, protested against 
Lincoln's action as follows in a letter written him in July, 
1864:* "Our bleeding, bankrupt, almost dying country longs 
for peace, shudders at the prospect of fresh conscriptions, of 
further wholesale devastations, and new rivers of human blood; 
and there is a widespread conviction that the Government and 
its supporters are not anxious for peace and do not improve 
proffered opportunities to achieve it." 

Greeley further intimates (page 482) the possibility of a 
Northern insurrection. Charles A. Dana, Lincoln's Secretary 
of War, says in his h'rcollcvtions of the Cicil War, that in April, 
1862, Greeley " was for peace." Nicolay and Hay (Vol. IX., 
pages 184 to 200) describe the transaction above as " Horace 
Greeley's Peace Mission." The Life of Hamlin (page 437) says 
Greeley called the above letter " the prayer of twenty millions 
of people." 

General U. S. Grant, in trying to show that he had not 
the enormous advantage that he is usually said to have had 
in the far greater number of people from whom he drew his 
army, makes serious concessions as to the indifference of the 
people at large in the " loyal " States to the cause he fought 
for, and the bitter hostility to it of a vast number of them. 
He says of the Southern army, in his Memoir (Vol. II., page 
500 et seq) : " No rear had to be protected. All the troops in the 
service could be brought to the front to contest every inch 
of the ground threatened with invasion. The press of the 
South, like the people who remained at home, was loyal to the 
Southern cause." Again (page 502): "In the North the press 
was free to the point of open treason, * * * troops were 
necessary in the Northern States to prevent prisoners from 
the Southern army being released by outside force, armed and 
set at large * * * The copperhead * * * press magni- 
fied rebel successes and belittled those of the Northern army. 
It was, with a large following, an auxiliary to the Confederate 
army. The North would have been much stronger with a 
hundred thousand of these men in the Confederate ranks and 

♦Holland's itncoZn (p. 478). 



Attitude of Union Soldiers. 37 

the rest of their kind thoroughly* subdued * * * it would 
have been an offence, directly after the war, and perhaps it 
would be now (Grant's Memoir is dated 1886) to ask any able- 
bodied man in the South who was between the ages of fourteen 
and sixty at any time during the war whether he had been 
in the Confederate army. He would assert that he was, or 
account for his absence from the ranks." See, too, page 35. 

Attitude of Union Soldiers Toward Coercion and Eman- 
cipation. 

On this we get a strange enlightenment in the account 
given by Russell in his Diary (page 155 et seq.) of his meeting 
the Fourth Pennsylvania Regiment going home from the Bull 
Run battlefield to the sound of the cannon that opened the 
battle. A note on page 553 of Greeley's American Confiiet de- 
scribes the same from General McDowell's official report of 
the battle of Bull Run — how on the eve of the battle the Fourth 
Pennsylvania Regiment of Volunteers and the battery of 
artillery of the Eighth New York Militia, whose term of ser- 
vice had expired, insisted on their discharge, though the 
General and the Secretary of War, both on the spot, tried hard 
to make them stay five more days * * * ^nd the next 
morning, when the army moved into battle, these troops moved 
to the rear to the sound of the enemy's guns. Greeley goes 
on to say: " It should here be added that a member of the 
New York Battery aforesaid who was most earnest and active 
in opposing General McDowell's request and insisting on an 
immediate discharge, was at the next election, in full view 
of all the facts, chosen sheriff of the city of New York — 
probably the most lucrative office filled by popular election in 

*In the debate in the House of the 20th Februarj', 1901, when Mr. Lentz 
of Ohio, said tliat if soldiers in the Philippines are ordered to kill prisoners, 
they are justified in deserting, Mr. Cannon, of Illinois, said that in his 
lifetime lie had heard more eloquent men than tlie gentleman from Ohio 
encourage desertion. " When the life of the nation was at stake," said he. 
^'raen all over the North stood behind the firing line and encouraged deser- 
tion. * * * * During the Civil War I thought if 8,000 or 10,000 of the 
copperheads had been shot we would not have been troubled with deser- 
tion."— iJoiiimore Sun of 21st February, 1901. 



38 The Real Lincoln. 

the country-" Russell gives the reason why General Patterson 
did not bring his army from the upper Potomac to help General 
McDowell at Bull Run, that* " out of twenty-three regiments 
composing his force, nineteen refused to stay an hour after 
their time." Can any explanation be suggested but that these 
soldiers and their friends at home reprobated the task to 
which they were ordered? 

McClure's Lincoln says (page 56): "When he (Lincoln) 
turned to the military arm of the government, he was appalled 
by the treachery of the men to whom the nation should look 
for its preservation." Scarcely any were so devoted to the 
flag; none knew so well the seriousness of the step as the 
officers of the regular army, but, notwithstanding, three hun- 
dred and thirteen (nearly one-third) resigned. General Keifer 
says that about March, 1861, " disloyalty among prominent 
army officers was for a while the rule." General Scott, com- 
mander of the army, recommended " that the erring sisters be 
allowed to depart in peace." Much pity has been spent on 
Major Anderson, cut off from supplies and bombarded in Fort 
Sumter, but one of Lincoln's eulogists has to rejoice now that 
he was spared the pain of reading the reproaches contained in 
a letter written him by Major Anderson, censuring him for 
proposing to use force. The letter miscarried. We have other 
letters of Major Anderson's, showing that he, like Scott and 
Seward, and the rest, thought coercion out of the question. 

Nicolay and Hay say the Union army showed the strongest 
sympathy with its always immensely popular general, McClel- 
lan, in his bold protests against emancipation, and that there 
was actual danger of revolt in the army against the emancipa- 
tion proclamation when General Burnside turned over the 
command of his army of one hundred and twenty thousand 
men to General Hooker in Virginia, f In Warden's Life of Gluisc 
(page 485 ct srq.) a letter of September, 1862, from Chase to 
John Sherman, says: "I hear from all sources that nearly all 
the officers in Buel's army, and that Buel himself, are pro- 
slavery in the last degree." 

*My Diary, North and South (p. 179). Channing's Short History of the 
United States (p. 308 et seg.) 

t Keifer's Slavery and Four Years of War (p. 171) ; Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln 
(Vol. I., p. 185). 



Proclamation of Emancipation. 39 

Grant, in his Memoir (Vol. II., page 323), says tliat during 
August, 1864, " right in the midst of these embarrassments, 
Halleck informed me that there was an organized scheme on 
foot to resist the draft, and suggested that it might become 
necessary to withdraw troops from the field to put it down." 
Nicolay and Hay (Vol. VI., page 3) tell of violent resistance to 
the draft in Pennsylvania. 

How did the North and the West Receive the Proclama- 
tion of Emancipation ? 

Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. II., page 261) records great 
losses in the elections in consequence of the proclamation, as 
do Schouler and Holland (page 457). Butler's Book (page 536) 
quotes Seward's reports in letters to his wife, that ' the results 
were deplorable," and that " the returns were ominous "; that 
in all but strong Republican States " the opposition was 
triumphant and the administration party defeated." Ida Tar- 
bell, in McGlure's Magazine for January, 1899 (page 165), says: 
" Many and many a man deserted in the winter of 1862-1863 
because of the emancipation proclamation. He did not believe 
the President had the right to issue it, and he refused to fight. 
Lincoln knew, too, that the Copperhead agitation had reached 
the army, and that hundreds of them were being urged by 
parents and friends hostile to the administration to desert." 
Page 162 shows that Lincoln himself "comprehended the failure 
to respond to the emancipation or to support the war"; that 
(page 163) " New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois 
and Wisconsin reversed their vote, and the House showed gi-eat 
Democratic gains." McClure's Lincoln, &c. (page 112 et seq.) 
says: " There was no period from January, 1864, until the 3d 
of September, when McClellan would not have defeated Lincoln 
for President." 

Charles A. Dana, in his Recollections of the Ciril War (page 
180 et seq.) says: " The people of the North might themselves 
have become half rebels if this proclamation had been issued 
too soon," and that " two years before, perhaps, the conse- 
quences of it might have been our entire defeat." How per- 
sistent the opposition continued to be may be judged con- 



40 The Real Lincoln. 



clusively by the fact that Lincoln's emancipation proclamation 
failed, as late as June, 1864, to get the two-thirds vote neces- 
sary to fix it in the Constitution, and had to go over to the 
next session, when the war was practically ended. 

But the crowning proof of the attitude of a very large part 
of the people of the North and the West is the platform and 
the nominee adopted by the Democratic party for the presi- 
dential election of 1864, near the end of the war. It advocated 
the abandonment of the war,*and the nominee was McClellan, 
an avowed opponent of emancipation. Such was the issue 
adopted on which to appeal to the North and the West, and the 
framers of it were called by Lincoln's Secretary of the Navyf 
some of the most astute and experienced statesmen of their 
day. Nor was the appeal a failure, as has been so widely 
heralded. It is Ida Tarbell, Nicolay and Hay, Butler, Schouler, 
Holland, McClure, Lincoln himself, who have recorded that 
three months after his renomination they all despaired of his 
re-election. 

The Method by which ** Disloyalty ** was Suppressed. 

The testimony above submitted seems ample to show that 
a vast part of the North and the West was " disloyal " to the 
war and to emancipation. Let us next consider the methods 
by which this " disloyalty " was suppressed. 

How fully Lincoln used every method of a military despot 
is best shown by an examination of a single chapter of a book 
just from the press — Bancroft's Life of William H. Seward. The 
following extracts from it need little comment. Lest any reader 
should suppose that the author of that book means to expose 
or arraign Lincoln or his agent Seward for the arbitrary arrests 
and imprisonments that he describes, be it understood that 
Bancroft does no more than mildly concede that Seward's 
zeal in a good cause betrayed him into undue severities in the 
" loyal " States. He says expressly (Vol. II., page 276): " For 
the general policy as practiced in the Border States, there is 

* McClure's Lincoln (p. 126 ct seg.) 

i Welles' Paper, The Opposition to Lincoln in ISO/,, in the The Atlantic Monthly 
(Vol. XVI., dated 1878). 



Method hy Which '"'^ Disloyalty ^^ Was Suppressed. 41 

no * * * occasion to apologize * * * gut there were 
some serious abuses of ttiis arbitrary power in the far Northern 
States." Of Seward as Lincoln's Secretary of State he says 
(Vol. II., page 264): "Probably the detection of political of- 
fenders and the control of political prisoners were the most 
distracting of all his career." After the suspension of the 
writ of Habeas Corinis, " the Baltimore marshal of police, the 
police commissioners and other men of prominence were seized 
and sent to a United States fort. Several members of the 
Legislature that were expecting to push through an ordinance 
of secession the next day were arrested in September, 1861, 
and treated like other political prisoners." 

Seward's system of arrest and confinement of the prisoners 
is described as follows (Vol. II., page 259) : " Some of the fea- 
tures bore a striking resemblance to the most odious institu- 
tions of the ancient regime in France — the BastiJc and the 
Lcttres de Cachet." 

" The person 'suspected' of disloyalty (Vol. II., page 261) 
was often seized at night, borne off to the nearest fort, deprived 
of his valuables, locked up in a casemate * * * generally 
crowded with men who had similar experiences * * * if 
he wished to send for friends or an attorney, he was informed 
that the rules forbade visitors, that attorneys were entirely 
excluded, and that the prisoner who sought their aid would 
greatly prejudice his case. An appeal to Seward was the only 
recourse — a second, third and fourth, all alike useless. The 
Secretary was calm in the belief that the man was a plotter and 
would do no harm while he remained in custody." It was 
found best (Vol. II., page 262) " to take prominent men far 
from their homes and sympathizers * * * The suspected 
men, notably Marylanders, were carried to Fort Warren or 
other remote places * * * jq most cases from one to three 
months elapsed before definite action was taken by the depart- 
ment * * * jf iiiQ arrest had been made without due cause, 
no oaths or conditions of release were required." * * * go, 
too, " if the alleged offence had been too highly colored by a 
revengeful enemy." See particulars of several cases (Vol. II., 
pages 264 to 276), and especially one in which ex-President 
Pierce, " who believed the South to be the aggrieved party," 



42 The Real Lincoln. 



was aimed at. " Not one of the political prisoners (Vol. II., 
page 276) was brought to trial. As a rule, they were not even 
told why they were arrested. When the pressure for judicial 
procedure or for a candid discussion of the case became too 
strong to be resisted on plausible grounds, the alleged offender 
was released." 

Of the well known story that Seward boasted to Lord Lyons 
that with his little bell he could imprison any citizen in any 
State, and that no one but the President could release him, 
Bancroft says (Vol. II., page 280): "If he made this remark, 
it is of no special importance; it was a fact that he was almost 
as free from restraint as a dictator or a sultan." 

Holland's Lincoln shows (page 476 et srq.) that when Lincoln 
killed, by " pocketing " it, a bill for the reconstruction of the 
Union which Congress had just passed, Ben Wade and Winter 
Davis, aided by Greeley, published in Greeley's Trihune of 
August 5th "a bitter manifesto." It charged that the President, 
by preventing this bill from becoming a law " holds the elec- 
toral vote of the rebel States at the discretion of his personal 
ambition," and that " a more studied outrage on the authority 
of the people has never been perpetrated." McClure's Lincoln 
gives the same account. See, too, Schouler's Historn of the 
United States (page 469). 

Usher describes in I\enii)iiscences of Lincoln (page 92 et seq.) 
how pretended Representatives from Virginia (besides those 
from West Virginia) and from Louisiana were seated in Con- 
gress. Schouler says that an address to the people by the 
opposition in Congress accused Lincoln of the creation already 
in August, 1864, of bogus* States. Gorham's Stanton (Vol. I., 

* The word '• bogus " is borrowed from Brownson's iJevtew, which said, in 
October, 1864, of the bill which VV^ade and Davis denounced Lincoln for 
" pocketing," as follows: ''He suffered the Bill to fail, there is no doubt, 
because it deprived him of the power to create rotten boroughs or Bogus 
States, to secure his re-election." The Sevirw reminds its readers of its own 
stout support of the war and of emancipation, and charges that Lincoln is 
true to neither but has had from the first no aim but to strengthen himself 
and secure his re-election. Morse describes in a very interesting way 
(Vol. II., p. 297) how Lincoln kept open the question whether the votes of 
his reconstructed States of Arkansas and Tennessee should be counted for 
him until " the very day of the count," when the result was beyond doubt, 
but concedes that West Virginia was counted, with no better right than 
they. Nlcolay and Hay (Vol. IX., p. 436 et scg.) describe apologetically how 
Virginia was made to figure in Washington as two " loyal " States. 



Livcubis Second Election. 43 



page 177) shows how indispensable such fictitious States were 
for the changes that were made in the Constitution, in the 
words, " no changes could be made without the assent of three- 
fourths of the States, and fifteen of the thirty-one States were 
slave States." 

Nicolay's Outbreak of the EcltclUon (page 475) says: " The 
evident desire of the people for peace was a subject of deep 
solicitude to the Administration." Morse (Vol. II., page 274) 
shows the general despair of electing Lincoln in a letter to 
Lincoln of Raymond, chairman of the Republican National 
Executive Committee, August 22, 1864, which says: " I hear 
but one report — the tide is setting against us," speaking him- 
self for New York and quoting Cameron for Pennsylvania, 
Washburne for Illinois and Morton for Indiana, " and so for 
the rest." 

Nicolay and Hay's Lincoln (Vol. IX., page 249) says that 
* * * by August, 1864, Weed, Raymond, every one, including 
Lincoln, despaired of his re-election. McClure's Ovr Presidents 
says (page 183) : " But in fact three months after his renomi- 
nation in Baltimore his defeat by General McClelllan was 
generally apprehended by his friends and frankly conceded 
by Lincoln himself." Several of his biographers give copies of 
a memorandum sealed up by Lincoln and committed to one of 
his Cabinet for safekeeping, in which is recorded his convic- 
tion that McClellan's election over him was certain, with a 
statement of his purposes how to act during the interval before 
McClellan would take the presidency. It is referred to by Welles 
in his papers in the Atlantic Monthly under the heading, " Oppo- 
sition to Lincoln in 1864 " (pages 266 and 366 et scq.) as " Lin- 
coln's despondent note of August 23, 1864." McClure, too, 
refers to it in his Onr Presidents (page 183 et sc(i.) See, also, 
Roosevelt's CroniireU (page 208). 

LincoIn^s Second Election and His Majority. 

It was under the conditions above described that Lincoln's 
second election came on. The management of it was committed 
in large measure to the State Department, whose workings 
have been shown above, and to the War Department. The 



44 The Real Lincoln. 



canvass for the presidency by Democrats was difficult, for an 
order of tlie War Department liad made criticism of tlie 
administration treason, triable by court-martial. Soldiers 
ruled at the polls. General B. F. Butler* gives full particulars 
of the large force with which he occupied New York city, and 
shows how completely he controlled its vote and its opposition 
to the war that had lately been demonstrated in its great anti- 
draft riot. McCluret shows how the army vote was found 
necessary and secured. Chauncey M. Depew % describes how 
the soldiers' vote was polled * * * " made out by [the 
soldier] himself, certified by the commanding officer of his 
company or regiment, and sent to some friend at his last 
voting place to be deposited on election day." Scores of 
thousands of soldiers were furloughed to go home to vote. ^. 
McClure describes how Lincoln was afraid to ask Grant to do 
him this service, but found Sheridan and other generals ready. 
Depew says that without the soldier vote so managed, Lincoln 
would have failed to get the electoral vote of New York. || 

Lincoln's re-election by an exceedingly large majority has 
been triumphantly alleged and is adduced as proof that what 
he had done and was doing had the approval of the North and 
the West. That the vote of the electoral college should be 
recorded for Lincoln was quite inevitable in view of what the 
witnesses quoted in this sketch have recorded of the political 
and military management of affairs, at election-time and long 
before, in the Border States, in Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and 
New York; in great cities like Chicago, New York and Boston, 
and in the country at large, as far as Seward's " little bell " 
could reach. But with all the odds against McClellan that have 
been shown the actual number of votes gotten by McClellan was 
more than eighty-one per cent, of the actual number of votes 
gotten by Lincoln. The figures by which this percentage is 

* Butler's Book (pp. 752 to 773), and Rhodes' History of the United States (Vol. 
IV., p, 330). 

+ Our Presidents, etc. (p. 195 et seq.). 

t Reminiscences of Lincoln (p. 22 et seq.) 

^ McClure's Lmco/n (p. ISG ft se;/.), and Whitney's On Circuit with Lincoln, 
(p. 445). 

I| Reminiscences of Lincoln (p. 430). 



Conclusions. 45 



ascertained were furnished in answer to a late application to 
the Peabody Library of Baltimore. 

Conclusions* 

This sketch makes no formulation of the conclusions as to 
Lincoln's character and conduct that might seem to be de- 
ducible from the evidence, except so far as some of the testi- 
mony above given formulates them, but some further formu- 
lations by the same witnesses will now be submitted. 

The Emancipation Proclamation has been described in song 
and story, on canvas and in marble, as a joyous and exultant 
announcement of freedom to the slaves. See how differently 
Ida Tarbell describes it and its author, and she is almost a 
worshipper of Lincoln. She says: "At last (page 525 et seq.) 
the Emancipation Proclamation was a fact, but there was little 
rejoicing in his heart, * * * no exultation; * * * indeed 
there was almost a groan in the words in which, the night after 
he had given it out, he addressed a party of serenaders " * * 
And she records that Lincoln himself said a few months later: 
" Hope and fear contended over the new policy in uncertain 
conflict." And she goes on: "As he had foreseen, dark days 
followed. There were mutinies in the army * * * tj^g 
events of the fall brought him little encouragement. Indeed 
the promise of emancipation seemed to effect nothing but dis- 
appointment and uneasiness; stocks went down; troops fell 
off. In five great States — Indiana, Illinois, Ohio Pennsylvania 
and New York — the elections went against him." 

Rhodes' History of the United ^States is one of the latest 
records in this matter. While he eulogizes Lincoln as ardently 
as any, he speaks (Vol. IV., page 234 rf sc(j.) of " the enormity 
of the acts done under his authority," and says " he stands 
responsible for the casting into prison of citizens of the United 
States to be counted by thousands (page 230) on orders as 
arbitrary as the Lcttres de Cachet of Louis XIV.," when the 
mode of procedure might have been, " as in Great Britain in 
her crisis (between 1793 and 1802), on legal warrants," and he 
pronounces (page 234) this extra-judicial procedure inex- 
pedient, unnecessary and wrong. See, also, Schouler's History 



46 The Real Lincoln. 



of the United States (page 465). Rhodes' Hlstonj of the United 
States gives unqualified commendation to the patriotic spirit 
and proper jealousy for his country's liberty that prompted 
Seymour's opposition to the President, and shows how very 
far it went. See pages 169 to 172 for proofs of Seymour's 
resentment toward Lincoln and for Rhodes' justification of it. 
Page 171 (t seq. calls Lincoln a tyrant. Two letters of Governor 
Morton of Indiana (Vol. IV., page 223 et scq.) and much other 
testimony show that Indiana was kept from acknowledging 
the Southern Confederacy only by force from Washington, and 
that Illinois was at the same time in nearly the same attitude. 

William A. Denning, president of Columbia University, says 
in his Essays on the Civil IVV/r, dated 1898 (page 39 et seq.), that 
President Lincoln's proclamation of September 24, 1862, was " a 
perfect plat for a military despotism," and that '" the very 
demonstrative resistance of the people to the government only 
made the military arrests more frequent," * * * that (page 
24 et seq.) " Mr. Lincoln asserted the existence of martial law 
* * * throughout the United States." He says " thousands 
were so dealt with * * * g^j^j that (page 46) " the records 
of the War Department contain the reports of hundreds of 
trials by military commissions with punishments varying from 
light fines to banishment and death." Lalor's Encyclopedia 
says the records of the Provost Marshal's office in Washington 
show thirty-eight thousand political prisoners, but Rhodes 
(Vol. IV., page 230 et seq.) says the number is exaggerated. 

The ceremony of signing the proclamation is elaborately 
described by Holland,* and all his ardent admiration cannot 
hide the President's unseemly behavior. Schoulerf records 
Secretary Stanton's " disgust," and Hapgood says Lincoln 
signed " with some half-jocose remarks." 

Stanwood's History of the Presidency concedes (page 299 
et scq.) Lincoln's usurpations (that he may defend and justify 
them), by showing the vast opposition to him in the Northern 
States, and from many men whom Stanwood acknowledges to 
have been " loyal " in purpose. Holland's Linevln says (page 

* See Holland's Lincoln (p. 329 et seg., and 392 et seg.) 

+ SclioulPr's HiMor;/ of the United States (Vol. VI., p. 631); Hapgood's Lincoln 
(p. 291 et seg.) 



Conclusions. 47 



291) : "All these labors Lincoln was performing with the 
knowledge * * * Hiat seven States were in open revolt, 
and that a majority throughout the Union had not the slightest 
sympathy with him." Rhodes, in his History of the United States 
(pages 407 to 423) records the force put by Lincoln on the 
unwilling people of the Noi'thern States to go on with the war, 
and gives yet more abundant proof of their wish to stop it. 

McClure's Lincoln (page 292 et seq.) says: " Nor was Greeley 
alone in these views. Not only the entire Democratic party, 
with few exceptions, but a very large proportion of the Repub- 
lican party, including some of its ablest and most trusted 
leaders, believed that peaceable secession might reasonably 
result in early reconstruction." 

Would Jefferson Davis, would Robert Lee have asked more 
than McClure here says the two great parties of the North and 
West agreed in believing ought to be done? 

Godkin, of the Nation, said as follows in one of his recent 
editorials: " The first real breach in the Constitution was made 
by the invention of the war potver to enable President Lincoln 
to abolish slavery. No one would now say that this was not 
at that time necessary, but it made it possible for any Presi- 
dent practically to suspend the Constitution by getting up a 
war anywhere." * * * 

Ida Tarbell, in describing the opposition to Lincoln, just 
after his nomination, in 1864, shows as follows the feeling of 
the people for him:'' "The awful brutality of the war came 
upon the country as never before. There was a revulsion of 
feeling against the sacrifice going on such as had not been 
experienced since the war began. All the complaints that 
had been urged against Lincoln * * * broke out afresh; 
the draft was talked of as if it were the arbitrary freak of a 
tyrant. It was declared that Lincoln had violated constitu- 
tional rights, personal liberty, the liberty of the press, * * * 
that, in short, he had been guilty of all the abuses of a military 
dictatorship. Much bitter criticism was made of his treatment 
of peace overtures; it was declared that the Confederates were 
anxious to make peace and had taken the first steps, but that 
Lincoln was so blood thirsty that he was unwilling to use any 

* Ida Tarbell, in McClure's Magazine for 1899 (p. 276 et seg.) 



48 Tlie Real Lincoln. 

means but force, * * * the despair and indignation of the 
country in this dreadful time all centered upon Lincoln * * 
the Democrats argued that the war and all its woes were the 
result of his tyrannical and unconstitutional policy. The more 
violent intimated that he should be put out of the way." 

In considering further what his eulogists have called the 
apotheosis of Lincoln, we have the following as to his place 
in men's minds before his death: He had been in Congress, 
and Morse comments on the small achievements that " saved 
him from being among the nobodies of the House." Adams' 
Life of Cliarlcs Fiviicis Adaiiis (page 181) says: " Seen in the 
light of subsequent events, it is assumed that Lincoln in 1865 
was also the Lincoln of 1861. Historically speaking, there can 
be no greater error. The President, who has since become a 
species of legend, was in March, 1861, an absolutely unknown, 
and by no means promising, political quantity," * * * 
and Adams goes on, " none the less the fact remains that when 
he first entered upon his high functions. President Lincoln 
filled with dismay those brought in contact with him * * * 
The evidence is sufficient and conclusive, that, in this respect, 
he impressed others as he impressed Mr. Adams in their one 
characteristic interview." And as late as 1873, ex-Minister 
Adams' Mrnioriail Address to the Legislature of Neio York on the 
occasion of Seward's death, described (page 48 et seq.) Lincoln 
as displaying when he entered on his duties as President, 
" moral, intellectual and executive incompetency." 

The Honorable L. E. Crittenden records, in order to express 
his regret for it, the fact that* " the men whose acquaintance 
with Lincoln was intimate enough to form any just estimate 
of his character * * * did not more fully appreciate his 
statesmanship and other great qualities * * * that they 



*But it was late in his public career that McClure's Lincoln (p. 123) says, 
" Lincoln's desire for a renomination was tlie one thing uppermost in his 
mind during the third year of his administration," and McClure's Our 
Presidents {x>. 184), says, "A more anxious candidate I have never seen" 
and, after an interview, " I could liardly treat with respect his anxiety 
about his renomination. Rhodes' (Vol. III., p. 368, in a note) records that 
R. Fuller, a prominent Baptist preaclier, wrote Chase, " 1 marked the Presi- 
dent closely. * * * He is wholly inaccessible to Christian appeals, and 
his egotism will ever prevent his comprehending what patriotism means." 



Conclusions. 49 

did not recognize him as tiie greatest patriot, statesman 
and writer of his time." Rhodes concedes (Vol. IV., page 520 
et scq.) that " his contemporaries failed to perceive his great- 
ness." General Donn Piatt presents very effectively his view 
of how the change of the American world's feeling toward 
Lincoln, and of its estimate of him, came about. In Reminis- 
cences of Lincoln, (page 21) he says: " Lincoln was believed by 
contemporaries secondary in point of talent " and " Lincoln as 
one of Fame's immortals does not appear in the Lincoln of 1861, 
whom men * * * likened to 'the original gorilla. ' " He 
says* in his Biography of General Thomas (preface, page 16): 
" Fictitious heroes have been embalmed in lies, and monuments 
are being reared to the memories of men whose real histories, 
when they come to be known, will make this bronze and 
marble the monuments of our ignorance and folly." And in 
Beniiniscenccs of Lincoln he says (page 477) : " With us, when 
a leader dies, all good men go to lying about him, and, from 
the monument that covers his remains to the last echo of the 
rural press, in speeches, sermons, eulogies and reminiscences, 
we have naught but pious lies." * * * " Poor Garfield 
* * * * was almost driven to suicide by abuse while he 
lived. He fell by the hand of an assassin, and passed in an 
instant to the role of popular saints. * * Popular beliefs, 
in time, come to be superstitions and create gods and devils. 
Thus Washington is deified into an impossible man and Aaron 
Burr has passed into a like impossible monster. Through this 
same process, Abraham Lincoln, one of our truly great, has 
almost gone from human knowledge (the Reminiscences are 
dated 1886). I hear of, him and read of him in eulogies and 
biographies, and fail to recognize the man I encountered for 
the first time in the canvass that called him from private life 
to be President of the United States." ' Piatt then goes on to 
describe a conference that he and General Schenck had with 
Lincoln in his home in Springfield. f "I soon discovered that 
this strange and strangely-gifted man, while not at all cynical, 

*^ 'hutes from his Associates {-p. lil). Schouler's History of the United States, 
uses without quotation marks the precise words of Piatt above quoted (Vol. 
VI., p. 21). 

' Reminiscences of Lincoln (p. 480). 



50 TJiC Real Lincoln. 



was a sceptic; his view of human nature was low * * * jjg 
unconsciously accepted for himself and his party the same low 
line that he awarded the South. Expressing no sympathy for 
the slave, he laughed at the Abolitionists* as a disturbing 
element easily controlled, without showing any dislike to the 
slave-holders. We were not (page 481) at a loss to get at the 
fact and the reason for it, in the man before us. Descended 
from the poor-whites of a slave State, through many genera- 
tions, he inherited the contempt, if not the hatred, held by 
that class for the negroes. A self-made man, * * * his 
strong nature was built on what he inherited, and he could no 
more feel a sympathy for that wretched race than he could 
for the horse he worked or the hog he killed, f In this he ex- 
hibited the marked trait that governed his public life. * * * 
He knew and saw clearly that the people of the free States 
not only had no sympathy with the abolition of slavery, but 
held fanatics, as Abolitionists were called, in utter abhorrence." 
Then Piatt candidly repudiates the false pretensions that 
are so often made to lofty, benevolent purpose in those who 
" conquered the rebellion," and ends as follows: " We are quick 
to forget the facts and slow to recognize the truths that knock 
from [under] us our pretentious claims to high philanthropy. 
As I have said, abolitionism was not only unpopular v/hen the 
war broke out, but it was detested. * * * i remember when 
the Hutchinsons were driven from the camps of the Potomac 
Army by the soldiers, for singing their Abolition songs, and I 
remember well that for nearly two years of our service as 
soldiers we were engaged in returning slaves to their masters 
when the poor creatures sought shelter in our lines." 



* Mrs. Lincoln, wlio was present, said, " The country will find how we 
regard that abolition sneaky Seward." Rhodes' History of the United States 
says (Vol. II., p. 325), " Lincoln was not, however, in any sense of the word, 
an abolitionist." 

fHerndon's Liiicoln (Yol. V.,p. 74 etseq.), tells a story of Lincoln's bar- 
barous cruelty to a number of hogs that lie was driving. Hapgood's Lin- 
coln (-p. 2b et so i ) gives the story, without defense or apology, naming the 
men who helped liim, and specifying that Lincoln devised it and aided in 
it with liis own hands. 



What This Sketch Would Teach. 51 

What this Sketch Would Teach, 

In view of what this sketch presents, those who have 

earned to rate Lincoln highest can hardly refuse to modify 

heir estimate of him, and it was with the purpose to effect 

such a change m men's minds, in the interest of truth, that 

h.t T Zf. undertaken. But the search in Northern records 

has taught the writer another truth, and a more important one, 

of Noi them prejudices by presenting no testimony but that of 

tor hrwf ? """' '^' P'^^ ^^"P^^^ ^^ ^^^1^*^^ ^-terials 
toi tins sketch. To win more patient hearing from people of 
Southern prejudices, it had been contemplated to put on the 
title page as motto Fas est ah hoste docerl. But the search 

loZ T^^^' ''°'*' ^^' '^' ^''' -^- --'• enemies Of the 
secession T "''"'' ^^^^PP^'^^'^d, deplored, bitterly censured 

of ? t c/T "^"'^ P"^'' disapproved yet more coercion 

IrTJ .^ f/""^ emancipation of the negroes, while a vast 
Pait thought the South was asking what she had a right to 

So it is to forgetfulness of the sad quarrel-to love, not to 

esentment or hate-that the lessons of this sketch wou d 

lead IS readers. Those who taught that there was "an irre- 

fToJt;?'"V^ '''"''" ^"''^ '^' ^^"^^ --- ^-^ - '^and- 
the Unued sJ!r ''"' ^^° ''"°""^^^ "^^ Constitution of 
Ibove hat if T- I '°'''"^' "^'^ ^^"•" '^ it not shown 
above that it wouki have been nearer the truth to sav that 
he North and the South were essentially of one aZd o, 

lonl" '"2 ;.?^''"- ^ ^'^'^ -'^^t' -t least as a revolu 
tionaiy right, withdraw from the Union, and whether the 
negroes should be emancipated? 

set^orthTh "'^ 'T''''' "^"'^ '° '^^°^' "^^t the facts were as 
set foith above, rather than go on believing the story that has 
spread so widely-that one side carried fire and s^o^d into 
he homes of the other as a punishment they believed The 
sufferer well deserved? Can those who suffered ^ great 
Thistoi?"^ '''"''''' '''' ^°-^^ '^'^^^ ---^ are'lo'^rLo'^l 



APPENDIX, 



ADAMS, CHARLES FRANCIS, was Minister to England 
during Lincoln's whole administration. He was of the 
family that had given two Presidents to the United 
States, and his father and his grandfather had been 
Ministers to England before him. 

ANDREWS, E. BENJAMIN, once President of Brown Univer- 
sity, is still prominent in educational work. He 
shows in his History of the United i^tatcs (Vol. II., pages 
64, 77, 81 ct scq.) that he is an ardent Abolitionist and an 
admirer of Lincoln. 

BUTLER, GENERAL B. F., was made by Lincoln Major-Gen- 
eral and one of General Grant's corps commanders, and 
was Lincoln's first choice for Vice-President. 

BBECHER, REV. HENRY WARD, was a strong Republican 
and Abolitionist, and a very prominent supporter of the 
war. 

BOUT WELL, GEORGE S., was in Congress from Massachu- 
setts, aided in organizing the Republican party in 1854, 
and in procuring Lincoln's election, and was made by 
Lincoln the first Commissioner of the Internal Revenue. 
(See name of Rice.) 

BROOKS, PHILLIPS, Bishop of Massachusetts. For evidence 
of his partisanship see a prayer he made in the streets 
of Philadelphia on the downfall of the Confederacy. In 
the large page and a half there is not a reference to the 
miseries of the defeated nor an aspiration for the amend- 
ment of their condition, physical or spiritual. See his 
Life and Letters, by Allen, Vol. I., page 531. 

CHANDLER, ZACHARIAH, SENATOR, was one of the or- 
ganizers of the Republican party in 1854. 

CHANNING, EDWARD, Professor of History in Harvard, 
shows in his Short History of the United States (page 352) 
an ardent admiration of Lincoln. 



Appendix. 53 

CHASE, SALMON P., was Lincoln's Secretary of the Treasury 
till made by him Chief Justice. 

CURTIS, GEORGE WILLIAM, lately editor of Harper's Wecldy, 
was a widely known scholar and author. The quotations 
show how he stood towards the war and Abolition. 

CRITTENDEN, L. E., was Register of the Treasury. The 
words quoted show his attitude toward Lincoln. 

DANA, CHARLES A., was long managing editor of the New 
York Trihuiir, took an important part in procuring Lin- 
coln's election, and was his Assistant Secretary of War. 

DANA, RICHARD H., was a distinguished author and law- 
writer, was nominated by President Grant for Minister to 
England, and was a representative of the best culture of 
Massachusetts. 

DAVIS, HENRY WINTER, was, though a Marylander, an 
ardent supporter in Congress of the war and of emanci- 
pation. 

DAVIS, DAVID, is named by McClure in his Lincoln with 
Leonard Swett, Ward H. Lamon and William H. Herndon 
as one of the four men " closest to Lincoln before and 
after his election." He was made by Lincoln one of the 
Supreme Court Justices, and finally executor of his estate. 

DAWES, HENRY L., represented Massachusetts in the House 
for nine sessions, beginning in 1857; succeeded Sumner 
in the Senate, and continued there till he declined re- 
election in 1893. 

DOUGLAS, FREDERICK, was one of the most honored and 
respected colored men during his long life, with every- 
thing to prejudice him in favor of Lincoln. 

DENNING, WILLIAM ARCHIBALD, in his Essai/si on flu; Ciril 
War and Rcconstrnction, pictures with merciless exulta- 
tion (pages 247 to 252) the years of humiliation and tor- 
ture imposed on the South during the " reconstruction." 

DUNNING, B. O., was chaplain in the Union army. His words 
quoted show his attitude. 

EVERETT, EDWARD, had been Minister to England, and was 
such another man as Richard H. Dana, ranking even 
higher. 

FOULKE, WILLIAM DUDLEY, shows in his words quoted his 
partisan attitude. 



54 The Real Lincoln. 



FREMONT, J. C, ran against Buchanan as candidate for the 
Presidency. As Major-General he proclaimed freedom 
to the negroes in his command. 

FRENCH, WILLIAM M., shows in his words quoted his parti- 
san attitude. 

FISKE, JOHN, was lately shown by a publication of Dr. 
Hunter McGuire to be a prejudiced partisan of North 
against South. 

GILMORE, JAMES R. Appleton's Encyclopedia says that a 
mission to Jefferson Davis made by Gilmore had the 
effect of assuring the re-election of Lincoln. 

GODKIN, E. L., was long and till lately the able and useful 
editor of the JSdfioii, but is utterly intolerant as to all 
that concerns secession and slavery. 

GORHAM, G. C, author of a late life of Stanton, which shows 
his partisan attitude. 

GRANT, U. S., General and President, is obviously the most 
trustworthy of all witnesses in the matters about which 
he is quoted. 

GREELEY, HORACE. McClure, in his Our Prcsidcvts ana How 
Wr Make Tltrm (page 243) calls Greeley "one of noblest, 
purest and ablest of the great men of the land," and says 
in his Lincoln (page 225 ct scq.): " Greeley was in closer 
touch with the active, loyal sense of the people than even 
the President (Lincoln) himself," and that " Mr. Gree- 
ley's TrUiune was the most widely read Republican 
journal in the country, and it was unquestionably the 
most potent in modelling Republican sentiment. It 
reached the intelligent masses of the people in every 
State in the Union." Gilmore's Recollections of Lincoln 
has a letter from Lincoln to Robert J. Walker, which 
says of Horace Greeley: "He is a great power; having 
him firmly behind me will be as helpful to me as an army 
of an hundred thousand men." Channing's (>1iort History 
of the United F!tafes calls Greeley " one of the ablest men 
of the time." 

HAMLIN, HANNIBAL, was Lincoln's Vice-President. 

HAPGOOD, NORMAN. His Abraham Lincoln is the latest 
biography, published in 1899. It shows the author's 



Appendix. 55 

attitude of admiration in the first page of the preface, 
declaring that he was " unequalled since Washington in 
service to the nation," and quoting the verses — 
He was the North, the South, the East, the West; 
The thrall, the master, all of us in one. 
See under names of Herndon and of Lamon his en- 
dorsement of their '■ revelations." 

HAY, JOHN, now Secretary of State, came from Springfield 
with Lincoln, and was his private secretary, as Nicolay 
was, to his death. Their joint work, Abraham Lincoln, 
in ten large volumes, makes the most favorable presen- 
tation of Lincoln of all that have been made. 

HERNDON, WILLIAM H. His Abraham Lincoln, dated 1888, 
sets forth on the title page that Lincoln was for twenty 
years his friend and law partner, and says in the preface 
(page 10): "Mr. Lincoln was my warm, devoted friend; 
I always loved him, and I revere his name to-day." He 
quotes with approval and reaffirms Lamon's views as to 
the duty to tell the faults along with the virtues, and 
says in the preface (page 10) : "At last the truth will 
come out, and no man need hope to evade it"; and he 
betrays his sense of the seriousness of the faults he has 
to record by calling them in the preface (page 9) 
" ghastly exposures," and by saying in the preface (page 
8) that to conceal them would be as if the Bible had con- 
cealed the facts about Uriah in telling the story of King 
David; and the very latest biographer, Hapgood, writing 
with all the light yet given to the world, says in his 
preface (page 8) : " Herndon has told the President's 
early life with a refreshing honesty and with more in- 
formation than any one else." Morse, the next latest 
biographer, also commends Herndon's dealing in this 
matter. See, in this Appendix under Swell's name how 
Herndon's extraordinarily close relations with Mr. Lin- 
coln are shown, and see under Lamon's name how Hern- 
don's testimony and Lamon's have gone uncontradicted. 

HOLLAND, J. G., was a popular author, and was long editor 
of Seribner's Magazine. For his ardent admiration of 
Lincoln, see the last page of his Abraham Lincoln. 



56. The Heal Lincoln. 

HUNTER, DAVID, was made Major-General by Lincoln, and 
was one of the most ardent Abolitionists. 

KASSON, JOHN ADAMS, was a conspicuous Republican in 
Congress, honored by Lincoln with important assign- 
ments at home and abroad in the Post-OfRce Department. 

KEIFER, JOSEPH WARREN, was member of Congress from 
Ohio and Speaker of the House, and wrote Slavery and 
Fovr Tears of War, which book shows his partisan 
attitude. 

LAMON, WARD H.; published his Life of Lincoln in 1872. He 
appears in the accounts of Mr. Lincoln's life in the West 
as constantly associated in the most friendly relations 
with him. He accompanied the family in the journey to 
Washington, and was selected by Lincoln himself (see 
McClure's Lincoln, page 46) as the one protector to 
accompany and to guard him from the assassination that 
he apprehended so causelessly (see Lamon's Lincoln, page 
513) in his midnight passage through Baltimore to his 
first inauguration. He was made a United States Mar- 
shal of the District in order (McClure's Lincoln, page 67) 
that Lincoln might have him always at hand. Schouler, 
in his History of the United States (page 614) says that 
Lamon as Marshal " made himself body-guard to the man 
he loved." Though Lamon recognizes and sets forth with 
great clearness (page 181) his duty to tell the whole 
truth, good and bad, and especially (page 486 ct seq.) 
to correct the statements of indiscreet admirers who 
have tried to make Lincoln out a religious man, and, 
though he indignantly remonstrates against such stories 
as making his hero a hypocrite, the book shows an ex- 
ceedingly high estimate of the friend of his lifetime. 
Both Morse and Hapgood commend Lamon and Herndon 
for their " revelations." The careful search in many 
records for the material for this sketch has not found 
a single attempt to deny the truth of Herndon's testi- 
mony, or of Lamon's. But the search did find a curious 
proof of the strait to which some one has been driven 
to conceal Lamon's testimony. In the Pratt Library in 
Baltimore, Maryland, is a book with a title as follows: 



Appendix. 57 

"RccoUections of Abraham Lincoln, 1847-1865, by Ward Hill 
Lamon, edited by Dorothy Lamon, Chicago, A. E. 
McCIurg & Co., 1895." Nowhere in this book of several 
hundred pages is found an intimation of the lact that the 
same Ward Hill Lamon published in 1872 the Life of 
Lincoln quoted frequently in this sketch, or that he had 
published any book about Lincoln, and although these 
"Recollections" do contain the avowal that appears in the 
Life of Lincoln, that Lamon thinks it his duty to conceal 
none of the faults of his hero, every word is omitted of 
the " revelations " and " ghastly exposures " about Lin- 
coln's attitude towards morals and religion that are re- 
corded in Lamon's genuine book. Bancroft, in his very 
lately published Life of Seicard, quotes (Vol. H., page 42) 
Lamon from this late book, making no reference to the 
genuine book, and a paper in the Baltimore Sun of 
February 25, 1901, does the same. See in this Appendix 
what is said under the name of Herndon and Swett. 

LOGAN, JOHN A., Major-General. His book about the war. 
The Great Conspiracy, shows throughout, as in its title, 
his partisan attitude. 

McCLURE, A. K. In his Lincoln and Men of the War-rime, 
and in his Our Presidents and Hoiv We Male Them, the 
author's intimate association with Lincoln is shown in 
many places (Lincoln, page 112 et seq.), and his attitude 
towards his hero may be measured by the following 
tribute (page 5 et se(j.): " He has written the most illus- 
trious records of American history, and his name and 
fame must be immortal while liberty shall have wor- 
shippers in our land." 

MORSE, JOHN T., published in 1892 by Houghton, Mifflin & 
Co., his Lincoln, one of the American Statesmen Series. 
It shows throughout, but notably in the last four pages, 
as ardent an admiration for Lincoln as any other biogra- 
phy. It concedes (Vol. I., page 192) the truth of the 
" revelations of Messrs. Herndon and Lamon " and the 
duty and necessity that rested on them to record these 
truths. Morse is next to the latest of the biographers. 



58 The Real Lincoln. 

NICOLAY, JOHN G. (like John Hay), came with Lincoln from 
Springfield, and was his private secretai-y to the end. 

PARIS, THE COUNT OF, was a volunteer in the Union army. 
See Volume IV., pages 2 to 7, for his partisan attitude. 

PIATT, DONN, GENERAL, in Ix'emuiiscciiccs of Lincohi (page 
449), refers to Lincoln as "the greatest figure looming 
up in our history," and as one " who wrought out for us 
our manhood and our self respect." (See name of Rice.) 

PHILLIPS, WENDELL. Appleton's Encyclopedia says he 
" began as Abolitionist leader in 1837 * * * made a 
funeral oration over John Brown * * * had the 
Aiiti-8lavcry standard for his organ." 

POORE, BEN PERLEY, was a distinguished editor, but best 
known as Washington correspondent; was major in the 
Eighth Massachusetts Volunteers. His book. The Gon- 
sinracy Trial fur the Minder of Ahrahani Lincoln, shows 
his partisan attitude. (See name of Rice.) 

RICE, ALLEN THORNDIKE, was long editor of the iVo/Y7( 
American Review, a leading Republican organ. As editor 
of Reminiscences of Lincoln he became responsible, more 
or less, for what is quoted in it from Piatt, Usher, Bout- 
well, Poore and Depew. 

RHODES, JAMES FORD, is author of a six-volume Uistonj of 
the United States that (Vol. IV., page 50) eulogizes Lin- 
coln ardently. 

ROPES, JOHN CODMAN, author of the Story of the Civil War, 
which eulogizes Lincoln. 

ROOSEVELT, THEODORE, now Vice-President. 

RUSSELL, WILLIAM HOWARD. His " My Diary, North and 
South," published in the London Times, shows a bitter 
aversion to slavery, and almost everything he saw in 
the South, and he shows plainly his judgment that it was 
the right and duty of Lincoln to crush secession. George 
William Curtis says in his " Orations " (Vol. I., page 
139) about Russell, that '" Europe sent her ablest corre- 
spondent to describe the signs of the times, and that 
Russell saw and gave a fair representation of the public 
sentiment." Adams' Life of Adams (page 151 et seq.) 
speaks of Russell's Diary as " the views and conclusions 



Appendix. 59 



of an unprejudiced observer through the medium of the 
most influential journal in the world." 
SCHOULER, JAMES. His Uistorij of the United States (page 
631 et seq.) shows that no biographer is more eulogistic 
of Lincoln. 
SHERMAN, JOHN, President McKinley's first Secretary of 
State, was a very prominent Republican leader during 
the war, and served in the Union army with sword, 
tongue, pen and purse, raising largely at his own expense 
a brigade known as Sherman's Brigade. 
SEWARD, WILLIAM H., was Secretary of State during Lin- 
coln's whole administration, and accounted one of his 
ablest and most faithful supporters. 
STEVENS, THADDEUS, entered Congress in 1858, and from 
that time until his death was one of the Republican 
leaders, and the chief advocate for emancipating .and 
arming the negroes. 
SUMNER, CHARLES, was long Senator from Massachusetts, 
and was a leader in support of the war and emancipation. 
SWETT, LEONARD. See his very close relations to Lincoln, 
shown under the name of David Davis in this Appendix. 
STANTON, EDWIN M., was often called Lincoln's " Great War 
Secretary." Appleton's Encyclopedia says: " None ever 
questioned his honesty, his patriotism or his capability." 
STANWOOD, EDWARD. His History of the Presideneij is a 

recognized authority, with no Southern leanings. 
TARBBLL, IDA, shows constantly in her histories the most 

ardent admiration for Lincoln. 
TRUMBULL, LYMAN, declined to oppose Lincoln for the 
nomination in 1860, and was one of the first to propose in 
the Senate the abolition of slavery. 
USHER, J. P.. was in Lincoln's Cabinet as Secretary of the 

Interior. 
WELLES, EDGAR THADDEUS, was Lincoln's Secretary of 

the Navy. 
WINTHROP, ROBERT H., was eminent as a scholar and 
statesman, was ten years in the House, and then in the 
Senate from Massachusetts. 



60 The Real Lincoln. 



WHITNEY, HENRY CLAY, shows his exceedingly high esti- 
mate of Lincoln in the last page of his On Gircuit tvitJi 
Lincoln. 

WADE, BEN, was one of the most prominent Republican 
leaders. 

WILSON, WOO'DROW, is a distinguished and popular professor 
in Princeton. For his admiring attitude towards Lincoln 
see pages 216 and 217 of his Disunion and Rciuiion. 



LINCOLN. 



By President Tyler^ William and Mary College^ Williams- 
burg:^ Va., Editor William and Mary College Quarterly 
Historical Magazine ^^'^ 



I have uo disposition to criticise Mr. Lincoln harslily, but I 
think the Northern people malce a great mistake in trying to 
make a moral and intellectual hero of him. In doing so 
they provoke criticism. 

I propose to say a few words about Mr. Lincoln in his aspect 
as a ruler. Lincoln began the. war in 1861 under circumstances 
that seem to put his character for honor in question. To 
Governor Morehead, of Kentucky, he expressed his intention 
of withdrawing the troops from Fort Sumter (Coleman's Life of 
Crittenden). Seward, the Secretary of State, invited Judge 
Campbell to a conference, and with full knowledge that he 
(Campbell) would communicate the intelligence to the Con- 
federate commissioners, told him the same thing. There were 
three of these conversations in March, 1861, between Campbell 
and Seward, and at each Seward was fully apprised by Camp- 
bell of his assurances to the Confederate commissioners. On 
the 1st of April Campbell received from Seward the statement 
in writing: " I am satisfied the government will not undertake 
to supply Fort Sumter without giving notice to Governor 
Pickens." There was a departure here from the pledge of the 
previous month, but as Seward accompanied the statement 
with the words that *' he did not believe any such attempt 
would be made, and that there was no design to reinforce Fort 
Sumter," Judge Campbell did not complain. On the 7th of 
April Judge Campbell addressed a letter to Seward on the 
subject of the rumors of the warlike preparations of the 
government, and asked him if the assurances he had given 

♦Reproduced, in part, from Richmond Dispatch, February 11, 1900. 



62 The Real Lincoln. 

were " well or ill-founded." In respect to Sumter Seward's 
reply was: " Faith as to Sumter fully kept — wait and see." 

On the next evening notice was given to Governor Pickens 
of the intention to supply Fort Sumter, " peaceably, if per- 
mitted; otherwise, by force"; and on the following day a 
powerful squadron, with men and arms on board, sailed from 
New York to South Carolina. Lincoln's message to the Federal 
Congress in July, 1861, referring to this subject, affords curious 
reading. He admits that, in a military point of view, the 
duty of the government had been reduced to the mere matter 
of getting the garrison safely out of the fort; and yet, from 
political consideration, it was deemed necessary to hold the 
fort. Therefore, Mr. Lincoln in his message minimizes the 
purposes of the government, and makes the military armament 
a mere errand of relief — " to give bread to a few brave and 
hungry men " — merely to enable the government to retain 
visible possession of the fort. 



Who Began the War ? 



Now, if this was all that was intended, why were not the 
supplies sent by an unarmed vessel, incapable of making an 
attack? In such a case, the peaceful character of the expedi- 
tion could not have been mistaken. Firing upon an unarmed 
vessel might have been retorted by Major Anderson in Fort 
Sumter, and the responsibility of the first shot might have 
been, with greater show of reason, laid upon the Confederate 
Government; but an armed expedition was prepared to accom- 
pany the supplies, and the facts justify the belief that it was 
for the object of forcing the Confederates to fire. Mr. Lincoln 
knew that the Confederate Government did not want to fire 
on Fort Sumter, and he took deliberate measures to leave no 
other alternative open to them; and yet he talks in his message 
as if it were a mere matter of giving " bread to a few brave 
and hungry men." Notice was given, it is true, that the only 
intention of the expedition was to supply Fort Sumter with 
provisions, but in the same breath the Confederates were in- 
formed that arms and men might be landed after further notice. 

It is idle for Northern writers to say that the Lincoln gov- 



Who Began the War? 63 

ernment did not begin the war, for, as tlie great constitutional 
writer, Hallam, tias well said: " The aggressor in a war — 
that is, he who begins it — is not the first who uses force, but 
the first who renders force necessary." "As was intended," 
says Lincoln in the same mesage, " notice was given." Now, 
why this intention, unless Lincoln had been fully informed 
by Seward of his conversations with Judge Campbell? For all 
honorable purposes the notice might as well have not been 
given. The fleet was prepared before any notice was given, 
and the notice that Governor Pickens finally received was 
anticipated by the newspapers. Mr. John C. Ropes refers to 
these assurances of Mr. Seward as " semi-ofiicial " only. For 
one, I fail to see how an official can ever become ' a semi- 
official," or how Mr. Lincoln, who retained Mr. Seward in 
office, after all the facts were known, can be considered in any 
other light than as his backer and indorser. 

In fact, Lincoln's message, to which reference has been 
made, mirrors his character exactly. He was a man of un- 
doubted mental power, but the workings of his mind, instead 
of proceeding upon broad planes of principle, wound in and 
out in narrow ways, and tortuous lines, and his conclusions 
have much the effect of the handiwork of a necromancer, which 
amuses, but never convinces. 

His Subtleties. 

The subtleties of expression to which he resorts in his 
attempt to justify, under the law, his unconstitutional acts, 
while carrying on the war against the South, cannot stand 
serious examination for a moment. When he asks, in his indi- 
rect way, whether the President is not justified in violating 
his oath in respect to one law, " if, in so doing, he keeps all the 
laws from going (unexecuted — by others), and prevents the 
government from going to pieces," he invites the answer that 
the President might on the same principle violate all the 
laws, if, by so doing, he can keep all the laws from going un- 
executed (by others), and the government from going to pieces! 
When he says that " if one State may secede, so may another, 
and when all shall have seceded, none is left to pay the debts " 



64 The Real Lincoln. 



of the Union, the answer is that the States were as well able 
to agree upon an adjustment of debts out of the Union as in 
the Union. The (Confederate) commissioners made known to 
Sev/ard their perfect willingness to assume their proper share 
of all pecuniary responsibilities to creditors. When he says 
that the word " sovereignty " does not occur in any of the 
State constitutions he quibbles on a word, for the constitutions 
of Vermont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts contain the 
words, " free and independent," and " free, independent, and 
sovereign," as descriptive of the political character of their 
people. When he says that the States never existed out of the 
Union, and were, therefore, not sovereign, the answer is that, 
if there is anything in this argument, he must first show that 
there is something in the nature of Union which is contradic- 
tory to separate State nationality. History records numerous 
instances of States leagued together for common purposes, and 
the international law writers have over and over asserted that 
sovereign States may unite and present one national front to 
the world, without any of them losing that character of 
sovereignty as defined by Lincoln — " a political community 
without a political superior." 

Indeed, one is compelled to think that Lincoln was laughing 
in his sleeve at his own solemn absurdities, for the same 
message contains a flat-footed sentence which shows that the 
honest idea he had in his mind at the time was the suppression 
of the " rebellion " at any sacrifice. This sentence is as fol- 
lows: " These measures " (calling out troops, blockading 
Southern ports, suspending the writ of Hahcas Corpus, etc.), 
" whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon under what 
appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity, trust- 
ing, then as now, that Congress would readily ratify them." 

Destruction of Private Property. 

To be plain about it, a man must seek high and low to find 
anything that is ennobling or refining in Lincoln's adminis- 
tration. International law sets the finger of condemnation on 
the burning of towns, colleges, private houses, unnecessary 
destruction of private property, and the abuse and punishment 



Destruction of Private Property. 65 

of nou-combatants. And yet, the generals of Lincoln, without 
any rebuke from the President, perpetrated everywhere 
throughout the South the most flagrant violations of interna- 
tional law\ Major George B. Davis, Judge-Advocate of the 
United States army, says, in his work on international law, 
that the policy of the United States " during the rebellion," 
in the matter of requisitions w'as " far from liberal." I should 
think so! Private property was taken everywhere without any 
form of compensation. All non-combatants over sixteen years 
of both sexes within the Federal lines were required either to 
take an oath of allegiance to the Federal Government or be 
sent outside the lines; perhaps, to starve or die in the woods. 
Lincoln published, under his own proclamation, an act of Con- 
gress, dated July 25, 1862, which denounced either death, or 
severe imprisonment, or confiscation, or a fine not exceeding 
$10,000, on every person in both sections assisting in any way 
in " the existing rebellion." What would people at this time 
think of the Queen of Great Britain sanctioning such an 
anathema against the Boers, or of President McKinley against 
" the rebel Philippinos "? Much is said of Lincoln's " practical 
sagacity," but did he show it in the selection of Burnside, 
McDowell, Pope, and Hooker to lead his army in Virginia? 
Even his emancipation policy was only a war measure, 
the example of which had been set a hundred years before 
by the British Government. At that time " the wicked policy " 
of freeing the slaves and arming them against their masters 
had been condemned in the Declaration of Vermont and by the 
people of the country generally. And now, in 1863, that a 
servile war did not at once ensue, involving in indiscriminate 
butchery, men, women, and children in the South and the 
repetition of the scenes of horror which had once prevailed 
in Haiti, was not at all due to the humanity of Lincoln.* 



*" Mr. Lincoln's virtual declaration of warand blockade was coupled witli 
two acts vrhich cast a glaring- light on tiie often-vaunted humanity of the 
Nortli, and the personal tenderness of nature and freedom from vindictive 
passion ascribed to the President. The latter ordered that Confederate 
commissions or letters of marque granted to private or public ships should 
be disregarded, and their crews treated as pirates. He also declared 
medicines of all kinds ' contraband of war.' Both acts violated every rule 
of civilized war, and outraged the conscience of Christendom." History of 
the United States, (hy Percy Greg, Vol. II., p. 182— American Edition; Rich- 
mond, Virginia— West, Johnson & Co., 1892).— [JS'ote by the Editor], 



6() The Real Lincoln. 



His Humanity* 

Nor can the cold facts of history see any " humanity " in 
Lincoln's policy as to the prisoners taken on both sides. The 
story of these poor men was a sad one. For much of their 
suffering in Confederate prisons the refusal of the Lincoln 
government to permit the cartel of exchange is undoubtedly 
responsible. There was, moreover, absolutely no excuse for 
the government of the Union, in the midst of plenty, for 
starving and maltreating the unfortunate Confederates who 
fell into their hands. Governor Morehead, of Kentucky, is a 
witness to the fact that the horrors of Fort Warren, even in 
Boston harbor, were such that prisoners were driven mad. 

In concluding, I wish to say that if Northern writers are 
determined to set up a standard of character and rectitude 
for the South, let them be wiser in their selection of their 
ideals. While there can be no doubt that the South has entirely 
eclipsed the North in the production of moral heroes (witness 
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Calhoun, Davis. 
Jackson and Lee), yet there are many men in the history of the 
North noted for the singular purity and excellence of their 
lives, whose example we will be proud to point out to our 
children. 



t.ofC. 



S'I2 



m. 



